Mikeboll64 vs francis

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,04:07)

Well Mike, I was being prepared for bombs, and all I got were marshmellows being thrown at me.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,04:07)

Would you mind giving me your translation for Hebrews 1:8… or the translation which you feel is the correct version?

No Francis, I would not mind at all.  I'm really undecided though.  I realize that the words COULD mean “God is your throne forever”.  And half of me believes this translation.  But I want to solidly refute this scripture as a Jesus is God proof text using the other translation of “Your throne, O God”……….just so there's no question about it being a proof text.  So I will give you my (by which I mean the actual scriptural) translation of it the second way.

8 But about the Son he says,

  “Your throne, O Leader, will last for ever and ever;
  a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
  therefore LEADER, your LEADER, has set you above your companions.”

This is based simply on the Hebrew word “elohim” meaning “leader”, and not “Supernatural Supreme Being”.  

Which reminds me………will you answer this question?  Do you, or do you not, acknowledge that the word “elohim” simply meant “leader”, and was applied to others in scripture besides YHVH?

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,04:07)

The first post (first part) will take your above answers and and see how the information and conclusion you've come to, ties into Revelation 3:12 which you brought up earlier, and which is the reason for Hebrews 1:8 being brought up by me.  I want to tie everything together so that we can get an overall picture of where we started, and where we are currently since your last post in here.

That's fine.  Post as much stuff as you like.  But the bottom line (the marshmallow), which you can't possibly refute, is that Paul (presumably) ascribed to Jesus a Psalm in which the “elohim” mentioned was in no way God Almighty.  And there is no amount of “traditional Christianity” you can post that will change the fact that if “elohim” didn't mean “God Almighty” in the Psalm, then it surely doesn't mean “God Almighty” when Paul quoted that Psalm later.

And how it “ties in” to Rev 3:12 is simple.  Rev 3:12 clearly has Jesus referring to HIS God.  By contrast, although you made the claim that the Father was calling Jesus “my God” in Hebrews 1:8, it has been proven that Jesus was only being recognized as the NON-GOD ALMIGHTY “leader” mentioned in Psalm 45:6.

But, do what ever damage you will.  I really hope to see you addressing SCRIPTURES……..not a whole bunch of trinitarian scholars who insist Hebrews 1:8 means Jesus is God Almighty.  Because the Bible is a dictarorship……..not a democracy.  So “majority rule” does not apply here.  I don't really care if every living soul on earth except me agrees that Jesus is God………I will STILL choose the words of the scriptures over every one of them.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,04:07)

p.s… you indicated earlier that I had somehow threw a compliment of yours back into your face.  I've been scratching my head ever since trying to find out when that occured.  Could you tell me when that happened?

I commended you on standing and defending your beliefs, unlike…….say, Jack, who has tried to turn a simple discussion about the word “elohim” into many other “proof texts” and ridicules………all without posting a single thing to refute Psalm 82:1 and 138:1, for example.

You blew my commendation off in favor of supporting the antics of those like Jack and Keith and Dennison, who have yet to show how the “elohim” in those above Psalms could  possibly be talking about either God Himself, or “false gods”.  These guys like to run circles AROUND the actual point in question, or divert away from it, instead of addressing it head on.  We'll see if you address the very simple FACT that “elohim” means “leader” and that scriptures tell of many other “elohim” besides God Almighty.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,04:07)

p.s.s…  For clarification purposes… does “God” equal to God Almighty in your eyes?  When the translators specifically and carefully and deliberately use the word “God” with a capital “G” in their translations… to what are they referring?   Isn't it true that “God” with a capital “G” refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses?

The translators may be referring to “God Almighty” when they cap the “G”.  But that doesn't mean the scripture was about “God Almighty”.  There was no distinction between upper and lower case letters in either the Hebrew or the Greek texts, so for a translator to cap the “G” in “God” only means THAT TRANSLATOR thinks that scripture refers to God Almighty…………..it doesn't necessarily mean the scripture itself referred to God Almighty.

Listen Francis, we have begun to debate SCRIPTURES, not a TRINITARIAN'S BIASED INTERPRETATION OF THEM.  NETBible and other sites give you and I all the information we could possibly need to decypher the scriptures for ourselves.

In other words, I couldn't care less if you show 1000 Bibles that cap the “G” in Hebrews…….for that still doesn't erase the fact that Psalm 45 was written about someone who WASN'T God Almighty.  And it is this latter FACT that we need to address, not how many trinitarian scholars cap the “G”.  Do you understand what I'm saying?

All I need to know from you at this point is whether or not you agree that the word “elohim” itself meant “leader”, and not “Supernatural Supreme Being”.

And whether or not you agree that Psalm 45 was written about someone who was NOT God Almighty.

And from those two FACTS, whether or not you then agree that being called by the title of “elohim” ABSOLUTELY means that one is God Almighty.

peace and love to you and yours,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Just so that I understand… let me run by you what I think is your argument.  And please correct me if I am wrong.

It appears that you are willing to admit that elohim (and theos I imagine) can mean God Almighty and/or simply “leader”, etc.  I gather this from the following statement of yours:

Quote

So it seems that you and I actually ARE on the same page here.  We both seem to understand that being called “elohim” does NOT absolutely mean you are God Almighty.  The word CAN be used in reference to God Almighty, and has been many times in scripture, but the word itself does not MEAN “God Almighty” and was also used as a title for others who were NOT God Almighty.

Is this correct?

If so, your next step appears to be an attempt to use context to help determine how we should translate elohim (theos) in Hebrews 1:8.  And the context you appear to be using is Psalms 45.  Is that correct?

If so… then is it correct to say that because Psalms 45 is being used in Hebrews 1:8, this is the reason why you think Hebrews 1:8 is saying “Your throne, O Leader” instead of “Your throne, O God”?

Is this the crux of your argument?

One more question if I may…

If Psalms 45 was not in Hebrews 1:8, and yet the verse still had said “Your throne, O God” (Your throne, O elohim), would you have then translated elohim as God Almighty… the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… as you have with Revelations 3:12 and other verses?

Thanks for your patience and indulgence.

And now a fun question:  I notice that when I type in the word elohim in here, the spell check you guys use keeps wanting to correct it to Elohim with a capital “E”.  Are the spell checkers that you guys use in this forum, Trinitarians?

Respectfully
Francis

p.s… I notice how you are completely convinced that the Trinitarians who have translated Hebrews 1:8 into “Your Throne, O God” are all biased.

Isn't this an ad hominem?  And also are you not making the same mistake you did earlier when you kept presuming that you knew the thoughts of the signers of the 1st Nicene Creed?

And what about you?  If you've never met any of these trinitarian translators that you disagree with, then how do you know that you are not as equally biased as they are, only in the opposite direction?

Just asking because your comments about bias on the part of people you've never met and yet who disagree with you.. it seems rather incredibly presumptuous.  Am I wrong?  And if so, how?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,07:55)

It appears that you are willing to admit that elohim (and theos I imagine) can mean God Almighty and/or simply “leader”, etc.

Hi Francis,

The answer is “NO, SIR”.  What I clearly said within my words that you quoted is that the word “elohim” can be, and frequently is, used in REFERENCE to God Almighty, but the word itself DOES NOT EVER MEAN “God Almighty”.  

The word itself means “judge”, but I've followed the lead provided by the NIV and NETBible in saying “leader”.  As the NET points out, the “judges” of Israel were also the military and governmental leaders of Israel, so to render it as “judge”, knowing how we today understand the word “judge”, does not do justice to what the Hebrew word “elohim” was conveying.  

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,07:55)

If so, your next step appears to be an attempt to use context to help determine how we should translate elohim (theos) in Hebrews 1:8.

No again, sir.  We need to use the context to find out who it was that was being called “leader” in each situation.  If the context says, “In the beginning, Leader created the heavens and the earth”, then we know that Leader is YHVH.  But the word “Leader” doesn't begin to MEAN “YHVH”.  Do you understand?  Here, let me give you my favorite example that Dennison makes fun of me for……..the “President” example:

“The President said it was cold at Valley Forge and the British were very close by”.  Here, the word “President” REFERS TO George Washington, but “President” doesn't begin to MEAN “George Washington”.  It still just means “leader”, but we know from the context that this time the word “leader” REFERRED to George Washington.  Get it?

The word “elohim” means “leader” no matter who it is applied to.  And when it is applied to YHVH, then we know the scripture IS TALKING ABOUT the Supernatural Supreme Being Who Created Everything, but the word “elohim” does not begin to MEAN “The Supernatural Supreme Being Who Created Everything”.

It is important that you understand this Francis.  You must understand that we have a flaw in translating “elohim” as “God”.  In most cases were fine.  But in the few instances where someone other than God is called “elohim”, we have problems.  We want to say, “But there's only one God who created everything, so that scripture HAS TO BE referring to Him, because the word MEANS 'God'.”  And that's wrong because “elohim” means “leader”, not “God”, and there are others besides God who are called by this title in scripture.

And the bottom line is that not all who are called by this title are God Almighty, so Jesus being called by this title doesn't make him God Almighty anymore than Deborah being called by this title makes her God Almighty.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,07:55)

If so… then is it correct to say that because Psalms 45 is being used in Hebrews 1:8, this is the reason why you think Hebrews 1:8 is saying “Your throne, O Leader” instead of “Your throne, O God”?

Psalm 45 speaks of a leader who cannot be God Almighty because his OWN LEADER sets him in a high place of honor that will be everlasting.  So when Paul quotes this scripture word for word in Hebrews, then it is STILL referring to a leader who cannot be God Almighty because his OWN LEADER sets him in a high place of honor that will be everlasting.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,07:55)

If Psalms 45 was not in Hebrews 1:8, and yet the verse still had said “Your throne, O God” (Your throne, O elohim), would you have then translated elohim as God Almighty… the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… as you have with Revelations 3:12 and other verses?

Absolutely not.  God Almighty does not HAVE a God Almighty that sets Him high or low.  So the minute it says “YOUR God”, we know the first “elohim” cannot possibly be referring to God Almighty because He doesn't have a God.

But that is moot anyway, since it IS a quote of Psalm 45 which all the scholars agree was NOT about God Almighty.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,07:55)

And now a fun question:  I notice that when I type in the word elohim in here, the spell check you guys use keeps wanting to correct it to Elohim with a capital “E”.  Are the spell checkers that you guys use in this forum, Trinitarians?

 That's funny.  I didn't even know HN had it's own spell check.  But a capped “E” doesn't make one God, right?    We must decypher from the context which uses of “leader” refer to our Supreme Creator and which ones don't.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 17 2011,07:55)

p.s… I notice how you are completely convinced that the Trinitarians who have translated Hebrews 1:8 into “Your Throne, O God” are all biased.

Pneuma
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son

Need I say more?    That's NETNote's very first definition of the Greek word we translate as “spirit”.  Really?    The word for “spirit” actually MEANS “the co-equal, co-eternal third person of the triune God”?  

Francis, I've noticed a trend among trinitarians lately.  They seem to be shying away from this “co-equal, co-eternal” stuff.  It's easier to refute, so many of them have opted for the “they have different ranks, but ontologically they're equal” stance.  Where do you fall in?  Your church fathers speak very clearly about the only UNBEGOTTEN God and His BEGOTTEN Son.  How does “co-eternal” fit into that?

Nevermind, I'll blow up that bridge when you build it.
 

Francis, I have directly answered what you asked.  Will you do the same?

Do you have a case when you claim that being called “elohim” means that one is God Almighty?  YES or NO?

If YES, then you'll have to do away with many scriptures in which people who were NOT God Almighty were called “elohim”.

If NO, then your point that Jesus is God because God called him “God” in Hebrews has been solidly refuted……..and we should move on to your next scripture that shows me how Jesus is God.

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

It is clear to me that a real communication problem exists surrounding the word “elohim” and what that means and how it should be used, etc.  The problem is not only evident in here, but also in the other thread as well.

In response to what you last wrote to me, I had origially written a long post asking for clarification about what you mean, but I see that Dennison is asking one of the questions I wanted to ask you, and so I am going to wait and see if your answer to him will clear things up for me.

If not, then I will submit my original question fof clarification and see if we can get that cleared up.

Until then, in an effort to understand what you are trying to say, I have been going through your words over and over and over.  And while I'm still confused, and while I wait to see how you answer Dennison, I would like to ask you a question if I may.

You had originally written the following:

Quote

8 But about the Son he says,  “Your throne, O Leader, will last for ever and ever;  a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;  therefore LEADER, your LEADER, has set you above your companions.”

“But about the Son he says…”, who is “he” in that sentence?  Who is talking?  The phrase “he says”… Who is that referring to?

And who is the Son in that sentence, In Hebrews 1:8?  And whatever answer you come up with, would you mind telling me why you think your answer is the correct one?

I ask the above question because I'm getting the sense that you are asking people to prove someone or something is “this and that” before they can call it “this and that”.

It's almost like if I pointed out a car to you, and said: “Look at that car over there”, you would immediately say something like “Just because you call it a car, doesn't mean it is a car”.  So then I have to run over to the car… and prove that what I'm pointing out to you is really a car,  before you will accept the word “car” that I was using, to represent the object that I'm pointing at.

After all, just because I call it a car doesn't mean it is a car.  Correct?

You used the President as an example in an attempt to clear things up (for me, it didn't).  But anyway… as I undersand your reasoning, just because I call Obama President, that doesn't mean he is really President.  It could mean he is President, but just because I call him President, that doesn't necesarily mean that he is President.

But how do we know Obama is President?  Not because we call him President, but because we know he was voted into office as President.

Another example… If I call you a human being, that doesn't mean or prove that you are a human being.  It could mean that, but not necessarily.

And so as I see it… because you personally do not believe that Jesus is God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) you are absolutely dead set against anyone calling Jesus God or implying that Jesus is God… or inferring that Jesus is God… or anyone attaching the label of “God” to Jesus.

It seems that you want me to prove that Jesus is God before you will accept any verse that may say/suggest/imply that Jesus is God.   Like the car example above.

Becaue you don't believe that Jesus is God before you started our discussion, then there is absolutely no way that Hebrews 1:8… or other scriptures either… can mean that it is saying that Jesus is God.  Why?  Because you don't believe that Jesus is God.  And therefore the scriptures CAN'T suggest or imply or say that Jesus is God.

Well… part of the problem with that kind of reasoning, is the underlying and unstated assumption that the scriptures cannot be trusted.  Or that the people who wrote the scriptures cannot be trusted.  

I mean, even if there was a scripture that clearly and unambigously had Jesus saying: “Listen carefully Mike… I am God.  I am God Almighty.  I am Lord.  I am JHVH.  Got it?  Are we clear on that?”… your response can still be: “well Jesus, I like you and your nice guy, but just because you call yourself God and God Almighty and Lord and JHVH… that doesn't necessarily mean that you are all that.  It could be true, but not necessarily.  So Jesus, prove  to me that you are God, before I will accept that those words can be applied to you.”

Well… I believe that Jesus' followers did ask for such a clarification before they laid down their lives… and that Jesus proved he was God to them in many different ways.  Action speaks louder than words they say.  

But because you can't go back in time and ask Jesus yourself if He is God Almighty, God, JHVH, Omniscient, etc… you and all the rest of us are dependent on those that did during his time here on earth.

And here is part of the problem as I see it.  It appears that you wan't something MORE CONCRETE… or your want MORE EVIDENCE than that which has been given in the scriptures, etc.

So my other question is this:

What will it take, to convince you that Jesus is God Almighty?  And please be specific.  Remember, all we have are the scriptures to work with… so what are you looking for in those scriptures that would convince you that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Well, like I said, a large part of Hebrews and our discussion is currently hinging on the word elohim (and context I dare say), and so until we can resolve that communication problem, I can't very well proceed. That is why I'm waiting to see how you answer Dennison's question.  If your answer does not clear things up for me, then I will ask some of my own questions.

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

Forgive me, but this last post seems like a diversion.  I'm waiting for a couple of simple answers to a couple of simple questions.  And the answers are right there in the scriptures for all to see.  And the answers are not in a “gray area” – instead they are “black and white, clear as a bell”.

1.  Does the word “elohim” actually MEAN “God Almighty”?  YES or NO?

2.  SCRIPTURALLY SPEAKING, does being referred to as “elohim” ABSOLUTELY mean that one is “God Almighty”?  YES or NO?

Both answers, according to scripture, are “NO”, but I would like you to answer, please.

I have not read Dennison's post yet, for I came here first.  You have asked many questions of me in the last couple of days.  I have answered them.  I have CLEARLY explained via the “President” analogy what I'm saying, and I find it very hard to accept that you don't understand it.  So I will put it as a third question here, and when I get some DIRECT answers to these three questions, I will answer more of yours.

If we use the word “President” referring to George Washington, does the word “President” itself begin to MEAN “George Washington”?  YES or NO?

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

you are at times very confusing and hard to follow.  For example:

1)… you keep saying that “elohim” MEANS “judge/leader/ruler”, but that it sometimes REFERS to God and Jesus and others.

But in the thread: Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » Member Profiles » Mikeboll64 vs francis, on Page 62, in a post to Dennison, you wrote the following:

Quote

And “elohim” means: 'elohiym 1) (plural)  1a) rulers, judges  1b) divine ones  1c) angels  1d) gods 2) (plural intensive – singular meaning)  2a) god, goddess  2b) godlike one  2c) works or special possessions of God    2d) the (true) God  2e) God Know of what you speak, young Dennison.  “God” with a capital “G” is only two of the nine definitions given for the word above.  And even then, it still simply means “ruler” or “judge”.  It was used of humans, angels, Jesus, and the Omniscient Being Who Created All.

Now if that is not confusing… or seemingly contradictory, then I don't what is.

On the one hand you say that “elohim” means judge/leader/ruler… but that it DOES NOT mean God or the true God… that it only sometimes refers to God and Jesus and others.   And yet, above, you say that “elohim” means the true God (2d above) and God (2e above).  Look at the first line in the above quote from you.  YOU SAID: “And “elohim” means”.  You then proceeded to list all the possible definitions or words that “elohim” means, including God and the true God.

This is a clear contradiction and a cause for confusion.

2)…  In the above quote, you said that “God” with a capital “G” is only two of the nine definitions given for the word above… and yet in the same breath you said: And even then, it still simply means “ruler” or “judge”

Well Mike, what is the difference between “definitions” and “means”?  There is none that I'm aware of.  So when you say that God is one of the nine DEFINITIONS for the word “elohim”… you can't then turn around and then say in the next breath that even then, it STILL SIMPLY MEANS “ruler” or “judge”.    

This is a clear contradiction and a cause for confusion.   Why?  because defnitions = means…. and… means=definitions.

You even admit that “definitions = means” when you wrote the following to me:

Quote

Francis, I want you to take note of the very first definition of the word.  This is what the word meant.  It meant “judge(s)” or “ruler(s)”…

I will repeat it, but this time I will underline the relevant words:

Francis, I want you to take note of the very first definition of the word.  This is what the word meant.  It meant “judge(s)” or “ruler(s)”…

Can you see that?

Bottom line is that the word “elohim” not only means leader/judge/ruler… but it also can mean.. and it is also defined as God and the true God.

3)… To Dennison you made this remark:

Quote

So I reject “God” as a DEFINITION of the word “elohim”.  It is not the case.

On the one hand you say you REJECT God as a definition of the word “elohim”… but you also say to Dennision: “God” with a capital “G” is only two of the nine definitions given for the word above (elohim).

This is a clear contradiction and a cause for confusion.   Why? Because in one statement to Dennison, you reject the definition on the one hand, but you also accept the definition in another statement to Dennison.

You keep contradicting yourself, and then you have the incredible gall to turn around and say to Dennison: “Know of what you speak, young Dennison”.

What does it say in the Bible about pride?   Pride goes before the fall?  Or is it this: Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.  I am NOT calling you a fool.  Not at all.  But you are making some very contradictory and confusing statements, and so I would gently encourage you to “know of what you speak” before you tell others to do so.  That's my humble opinion anyway.

4)… You made the following statements:

Quote

Because the SCRIPTURAL FACT is:  Being called by the word “elohim” did NOT mean that one was God Almighty.  And many scriptures bear this out.  And if the part I bolded is correct, (which it IS), then calling Jesus by this title does not, IN AND OF ITSELF, teach us that Jesus is God Almighty.  AND…………….if the part I bolded is correct, (which it IS), then the word “elohim” does not MEAN God Almighty.  If it did, then anyone who was ever called by that word would BE God Almighty. CAN YOU GRASP THIS?

Quote

If you can't understand that the word “elohim” many times REFERRED TO God Almighty, but never began to actually MEAN “God Almighty”, then what else could I say anyway?

Quote

Does “elohim” actually MEAN “God Almighty”?  No, because others who were NOT God Almighty were called by it.  So does it mean that Jesus is God Almighty when HE is called by it?  No, because others who were NOT God Almighty were called by it.

And yet you will say: “elohim” means judge/leader/ruler… but that it DOES NOT mean God or the true God… that it only sometimes refers to God and Jesus and others.

Well Mike, can't the same objection above also be applied to “ruler/judge/leader”?

For example, I can call you elohim, but that doesn't MEAN you are a leader or a ruler… even though I refer to you as a leader or a ruler.

So how do you know when the word “elohim” should be applied or should refer to a person as MEANING that they are a leader?

In other words… how do you know that “elohim” (leader) is being applied correctly in the first place?  Aren't you just ASSUMING that “elohim” (leader) is being applied correctly to a person when you see it in the Bible?   I mean, if I can call you elohim (leader), and be wrong, then how do you know that it is being applied correctly in the Bible?

I mean, look at what you wrote and see the arguments that have been going round and round in here…

Above your wrote this: Because the SCRIPTURAL FACT is:  Being called by the word “elohim” did NOT mean that one was God Almighty.

Well, in the same way, it is also a scriptural fact that being called by the word “God” does not MEAN that one was “God”.   And therefore, just because someone is being called leader (elohim), it also does not MEAN that one is a leader (elohim). Because they in fact may not be a leader (elohim).  Just as there are false gods, so there are false leaders.

So… tossing your own question back at you, I will ask: CAN YOU GRASP THIS?

5)
…  You wrote this:

Quote

And THAT'S how they should have done “elohim”.  It is a TITLE that MEANS “judge/leader/ruler”, that sometimes REFERS TO God and Jesus and others.

I think this is a VERY, VERY telling and revealing remark about your bias.  Even maybe arrogance on your part?   You will use NETNotes when it suits you, but you will then turn around and  reject or ignore or say that NETNotes are wrong,  when you don't like what NETNotes says.

Well, if this is okay in your eyes, then how could you even DARE say that  I can't do the same thing as you and say that I will reject what you say, and use only those translations that I agree with?  If I used that approach, I'm only doing what you are doing with NETNotes, and so therefore you can't object if I do what you do.

You see, you've put yourself on the horns of a dilemma.

6)… You wrote:

Quote

The elohim mentioned in Hebrews 1:8 HAS AN ELOHIM, so he can't very well be El Elyon (El Most High), can he?

He can if God the Father and God the Son are ONE God.  And He certainly can,  if as I believe, that the Trinity is true.

So this shows how our beliefs will often color our understanding of a verse we are examining.

7)…  You wrote this:

Quote

And THAT'S how they should have done “elohim”.  It is a TITLE that MEANS “judge/leader/ruler”, that sometimes REFERS TO God and Jesus and others.

It's not in NETNotes, so where does it say that “elohim” is a title that ONLY MEANS “judge/leader/ruler”… and never God, but that “elohim” ONLY REFERS to God and Jesus and others?

8)… You wrote this:

Quote

Francis had made the claim that Jesus must be “God” because “elohim” was applied to him in Hebrews 1:8.  And we all now know that having the word “elohim” applied to you does NOT make you God.

No one is suggestting that the word “elohim” MAKES a person God… or even MAKES a person a leader or a judge for that matter.  How can a word MAKE someone?  Words are just symbols and cannot MAKE someone into something.  They are used by humans as identification or as an adjective to DESCRIBE something.  But words do not MAKE anything.

9)… Here is another example from you…

Quote

We know from scripture that having the word “elohim” applied to you does NOT necessarily mean you are God Almighty.  We know the same thing from Strong's definition of “elohim”.  And that's really all there is to it.

If the word elohim applied to you does NOT necessarily mean you are God Almighty, then that means the opposite of that is equally true… which is that if the word elohim is applied to you, it CAN mean you are God Almighty… its just that it does not necessarily mean you are.

That is how I understand the English language as I speak it and use it.

10)… Here is another example from you…

Quote

Bottom line:  When that word is applied to Jesus Christ, while it COULD be implying that Jesus is God Almighty, it surely doesn't HAVE to be implying that.

If what you say is true, then the reverse is also true. Namely that when elohim is applied to Jesus Christ, it surely doesn't have to be implying that He is God Almighty, but it COULD be implying that He is.

11)… Here is another example from you…

Quote

So anyone who ever claims Jesus is God Almighty based ONLY on the fact that he has been called by the title “god” is mistaken and speaking unscripturally.

Doesn't this statement of yours open the possibility and chance that Jesus can be God Almighty when He is called by the word elohim… as long as it is not the ONLY thing the claim is based on?

Think about it Mike.  Above, elohim can mean “god” and God.  So if elohim is applied to Jesus, then because of the list of definitions you gave, the claim can be made that Jesus is God Almighty… if I supply other evidences to go along with the word elohim.  Isn't that what you just said above?  If not, then this only shows that we are having a major communication problem.

12)… Here is another example from you….

In the thread: Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » Member Profiles » Mikeboll64 vs francis on page 88, at Jan. 16 2011 at 01:56, you made this comment:

Quote

NO.  “Elohim” is DEFINED as “judge” or “ruler” or “leader”.

But above, you gave more definitions than just these 3.  You also said that elohim can be defined as God… and as the true God.

See the confusion?

13)… Here is another example from the same post above…

Quote

It is the same with “elohim”.  The word “elohim” in and of itself means “ruler”, not “God Almighty”.

But above you supplied other definitions or other words that elohim can “in and of itself” MEAN something other than just ruler.  And one of them is God… and/or the true God.

See the confusion?

14)… Here is another example from you to Keith…

Quote

It wouldn't matter if it only referred to a human being once, Keith.  The fact is that “elohim” does NOT literally MEAN “God”……..and you KNOW that fact.

The facts that we do know is that according to you and NETNotes (as your above statements show us), “elohim” can literally mean God.

15)… Here is another example which really confused me to heck…

Quote

The word CAN be used in referrence to God Almighty, and has been many times in scripture, but the word itself does not MEAN “God Almighty” and was also used as a title for others who were NOT God Almighty. Therefore, CAN it refer to God Almighty?  Of course.  CAN it also refer to those who AREN'T Go d Almighty?  Of course.  So does the word itself MEAN “God Almighty”?  Not a chance.

Let me try and explain why I find this comment of yours very confusing.

Isn't it true that I can refer to you as “leader”(elohim) when you are not a leader (elohim)… and I can also refer the word “leader” (elohim) to those who ARE leaders (elohim)?  Of course I can.  So does the word itself MEAN leader?  Yes.

It's the same way about God.  In the above quotes I've listed so far, you and NETNotes have both said that elohim can MEAN and be DEFINED as God.   So while it is true that just because we can call someone God (elohim)… or call someone Leader (elohim)…  or call someone god (elohim)…  or call someone angels (elohim)… or call someone goddess (elohim)… or call someone  a divine one (elohim)… or call someone godlike… it doesn't MEAN that they are.

How do we know if we are correct in calling someone God or leader or god or goddess or angel, etc?  By context only.

Anyway… your statements are not the only thing that has caused me a lot of confusion.  When I go and try to find out what the word elohim means, I get all kinds of definitions/meanings which appear to completely contradict your statement that:

Quote

So I reject “God” as a DEFINITION of the word “elohim”.  It is not the case.  The word never MEANS “Supernatural Supreme Ruler”.

For example:

16)…  The following information is from Wikipedia:

— Elohim  is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il. It is the usual word for “god” in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning “gods”.

— The singular forms eloah and el are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.

— In Hebrew the form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, which normally indicates a masculine plural, however with Elohim the construction is usually grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the Hebrew God, but grammatically plural (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7)

— The choice of word or words for God varies in the Hebrew Bible. According to the documentary hypothesis these variations are evidence of different source texts: Elohim is used as the name of God in the Elohist and the Priestly source, while Yahweh is used in the Jahwist source. The difference in names results from the theological point being made in the Elohist and Priestly sources that God did not reveal his name, Yahweh, to any man before the time of Moses.

— Elohim occurs frequently throughout the received text of the Torah. In some cases (e.g. Exodus 3:4, “… Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush …”), it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel. In other cases, Elohim acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah, and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”).

— God of Israel:  In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular.

— Hebrew Bible:  The word Elohim' occurs more than 2500 times in the Hebrew Bible, with meanings ranging from “god” in a general sense (as in Exodus 12:12, where it describes “the gods of Egypt”), to a specific god (e.g., 1 Kings 11:33, where it describes Chemosh “the god of Moab”, or the frequent references to Yahweh as the “elohim” of Israel), to demons, seraphim, and other supernatural beings, to the spirits of the dead brought up at the behest of King Saul in 1 Samuel 28:13, and even to kings and prophets (e.g., Exodus 4:16).

I think it's very clear from Wikipedia that elohim can refer to… be defined as… and mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

17)…  The following information is from http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/names_of_g-d.html:

—- Names Revealed in the Tanakh

Of the various Names of God found in the Tanakh, the one which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, though the other Names are significant and provide additional light on the nature and character of God.

1. YHVH
2. Elohim
3. El
4. Eloah
5. Elah

— Introduction
The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly of Eloah) and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth”(Genesis 1:1):

—  In the traditional Jewish view, Elohim is the Name of God as the Creator and Judge of the universe (Gen 1:1-2:4a).

     “The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to those, You want to know my name? I am called according to my actions. When I judge the creatures I am Elohim, and when I have mercy with My world, I am named YHVH” (Ex R. 3:6).

—- Elohim. [The basic form]
God; gods. The plural form of El, meaning “Strong One.” The Name Elohim occurs 2,570 times in the Tanakh. See Isa. 54:5; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18; Deut. 5:23; etc.

— Elohim is COMBINED with other words to provide ADDITIONAL description about God.  These other names or titles for God are sometimes called “construct forms”.  

…. The Son of God = Ben ELOHIM.

…  God the Father = ELOHIM HaAv.

…  The Living God = ELOHIM Chayim.

…  God in heaven = ELOHIM Bashamayim.

…  The God of Truth = ELOHIM Emet.

18)…  The following information is from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm:

Elohim is the common name for God.

The above sources suggests that you are wrong when you say:

Quote

So I reject “God” as a DEFINITION of the word “elohim”.  It is not the case.  The word never MEANS “Supernatural Supreme Ruler”

———————————————–

You asked two questions:

Quote

1.  Does the word “elohim” actually MEAN “God Almighty”?  YES or NO?

As the above statements from you has shown, both you and NETNotes says that “elohim” can acutally MEAN the true God… and God… as well as 7 other definitions/meanings.

You even wrote this to me:

This is the NETNotes definition of “elohim”, which English translators usually, BUT NOT ALWAYS, translate as “God”:

—————————————————

Quote

2.  SCRIPTURALLY SPEAKING, does being referred to as “elohim” A BSOLUTELY mean that one is “God Almighty”?  YES or NO?

I just answered that above… and so you won't accuse me of not answering your question, I will simply repeate what I just said.

As the above quotes copied directly from you has shown… both you and NETNotes and other sources says that “elohim” can acutally MEAN… and refer to… and be defined as the true God… and God.

—————————————————–

AND FINALLY…

The reason why I brought up Hebrews 1:8 was in response to you bringing up Revelation 3:12 in an attempt to prove by scriptures that Jesus was not God.

So let's look at the verse again…

Revelation 3:12 (New International Version, ©2010)
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

Now… you've been making a huge effort to try and suggest that “elohim” can only mean “leader”… and not God.  If that is the case, then doesn't that work against your argument that Revelations 3:12 proves that Jesus is NOT God?

Why are willing to translate “elohim” in Revelations 3:12 as “God”… and yet you won't translate “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8 as “God”?

If you were being consistent, then wouldn't Revelations 3:12 read as follows:

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my Leader. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my Leader and the name of the city of my Leader, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my Leader; and I will also write on them my new name.

Well… as I have been arguing all along… the Economic Trinity…  or a functional hierachy…  or different roles between the Persons of the Trinity… as implied by verses like 1Corinthians and John 17 and Matthew 28 (among others), does not imply inferiority or “less than” between them.  So Jesus (God the Son) can very well call His Father (God the Father) his leader, and not imply at all that God the Father and God the Son are NOT the True God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

—————————————–

CONCLUSION:

The word “elohim” is playing a major role in your attempts to prove that Jesus is not God… and it plays a major role in my defense for the belief that Jesus is God.

So when I said I could not proceed until we got this ironed out…  this is not a diversion as you claim… because you are making a lot of confusing statements that need to be addressed.

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

p.s.  I think what might be causing confusion is you are confusing “adjectives” with “nouns”

The word Leader is more of an adjective which describes a person.  Leader is not a person in of itself… but a description of a person.

But God is more of a noun… not a description per se.  When I say God… and when the translators say “God”… they mean the God of Israel… the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

So to me… you don't refer to God as God… because that is redundant.  To me, it's like refering to Francis as Francis.

Now you can describe someone as being like God… but in so doing, you are then using it like an adjective, a description.

It's just a thought.  I think the confusion is more of a case where you are using “leader” as an adjective…. but I'm using God as a noun.

I don't know if that helps, but I'll throw out there.

[mikeboll64]

Francis,

This debate is about what WE say to each other in THIS thread.  I don't want to answer to SF and then answer the same things to you, so LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY:

Genesis 49:24
But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel

Does the word “ROCK” here REFER TO YHVH?  Yes.  Does the Hebrew word for “rock” now begin to MEAN “YHVH”?  Is YHVH a DEFINITION of the word “rock” now?  NO, NO, NO!

You are going overboard with trying to pretend that I'm saying contradictory things or being confusing.  But all I'm saying about “elohim” is the same thing I'm saying about “rock” above.  Does the word “rock” MEAN “supernatural supreme being”?  No.  So “supernatural supreme being” is NOT a definition of the word “rock”.  And I should have quoted the word “definition” in my statement to Dennison.  I should have said, “There are only two out of nine 'definitions' that say 'god'.”  But if NETNotes shows “God” as a DEFINITION of the Hebrew word for “rock” like they do for “elohim”, will you believe them?  Or will you REJECT that as a real “DEFINITION” of the word?

Anyway, let's you and I keep OUR debate confined to the words I say to YOU in this thread, and not what I may or may not have posted 2 years ago, or even yesterday, in other threads, okay?  If I am confusing YOU by something I said to YOU, then bring up what I said to YOU and I'll explain it to YOU.  Because OUR debate is happening in THIS thread, not in the other one.  

Francis, to English speaking people of the 21st century, does the word “god” almost invariably mean “supernatural being”?  Yes.  

Most Christians would not ever refer to anyone as a “god” unless it was God Almighty Himself, and they would be very quick to point out that “THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD!”  WJ, SF and others here can't even bring themselves to say that Satan is the “god” of this world, instead claiming he is no “god” at all.  Because in THEIR 21st century Christian view, there is God, and then there are “false” or “so-called gods”…….and that's it.

But that view does not reconcile with the scriptural use of the word “elohim”, does it?  Because when Deborah, a judge that YHVH “raised up” and “was with”, (according to Judges 2:18), was called “elohim”, it did not mean she was a “false god”, a “so-called god”, “God Almighty”, or even a “supernatural being”.  It simply meant she was a “leader”, according to the footnote of NETBible's translation of Judges 2:16:

Jdg 2:161tn Or more traditionally, “judges” (also in vv. 17, 18 [3x], 19). Since these figures carried out more than a judicial function, also serving as rulers and (in several instances) as military commanders, this translation uses the term “leaders.”

So this is my last attempt at explaining this to you and the other trinitarians who only want “elohim” to literally mean “god” because they think it gives them a couple of proof texts.  Are you ready?

To the Christian society of today, does the word “God”, with a captial “G”, absolutely and positively always refer to God Almighty, our Creator?  YES.

To the Hebrew society of Biblical times, did the word “elohim” absolutely and positively always refer to God Almighty, their Creator?  NO.

So you guys go ahead and think the word “elohim” actually MEANS “God Almighty”, and watch the various translators stumble over verses where they know the word doesn't refer to either God Almighty or a “false god”.  

And I'll stick with the reality that it MEANS “leader”, although it was used many times to REFER TO God Almighty.  From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

If Elohim be regarded as derived from El, its original meaning would be “the strong one” according to Wellhausen's derivation of El, from ul (Skizzen, III, 169); or “the foremost one“(ie: LEADER), according to Nöldeke's derivation of El from ul or il, “to be in front“(ie: LEADER)(Sitzungsberichte der berlinischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1880, pp. 760 sqq.; 1882, pp. 1175 sqq.); or “the mighty one”, according to Dillmann's derivation of El from alah or alay, “to be mighty” (On Genesis, I, 1);  

Look Francis, we've all said our piece on it.  Now let's drop the subject, for we are getting no closer to the conclusion of Hebrews 1:8 by going back and forth about this.

Let's deal with what we know FOR A FACT.  The word “elohim” could refer to God Almighty, but many times in scripture did NOT refer to God Almighty.  Can we agree on this?  Therefore, for one to be called by this word did not NECESSARILY mean that one was “God Almighty”.  Can we agree on this?

Okay, I will ask you only ONE question………please DIRECTLY answer it.  

Is the “elohim” referred to in Psalm 45:6 “God Almighty” in your opinion?  YES or NO?

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

We were originally talking about Micah 5:4.  I didn't bring that verse up.  You did.  You brought up that verse because you felt that this scripture clearly lists Jesus as someone other than and lessor to his God.

After showing that you were reading your bias about Jesus INTO Micah… we finally agreed that the Prima Facie question we needed to address  was whether or not Jesus is God.

You started the ball rolling by bringing up Revelation 3:12.  Once again,  I didn't bring that verse up.  You did. You brought up that verse because you felt that this scripture clearly shows that Jesus is not God because Jesus has a “my God” …. while in heaven… and so to you,  since God can't have a God as His God, then this must mean that Jesus is not God.

In response to Revelation 3:12, I brought up 4 clues which shows how Jesus, being God, can still have a “my God” without implying inferiority or being lessor to His God.  

You elected not to address 3 of them, but instead, you focused on Hebrews 1:8, one of the clues I had brought up to respond to Revelations 3:12.

Clearly, the word “elohim” plays a huge role in Hebrews 1:8 (and in Revelation 3:12,  I might remind you) and thus it is of paramount importance that we understand what “elohim” means and how  it was being used in Hebrews 1:8 (as well as in Revelations 3:12).

You did everything you could to attack the traditional understanding among scholars ( I listed over 23 different translations) that Hebrews 1:8 has God calling Jesus God.  From what I can gather from your often confusing language is that the entire foundation of your reading and understanding of Hebrews 1:8 centered squarely and firmly on your belief that “elohim” has only one meaning… which was that “elohim” means leader/ruler/judge… and only that.   You said that “elohim” can refer to God, but that it never does, or it never can MEAN God.  

In defense of your position and stance… which is clearly in the minority… you were not able…. as far as I can see from your confusing language… to offer up one piece of evidence to prove that your understanding of “elohim” is correct and that everyone one else was wrong.

I even point blank asked you:

“It's not in NETNotes, so where does it say that “elohim” is a title that ONLY MEANS “judge/leader/ruler”… and never God, but that “elohim” ONLY REFERS to God and Jesus and others?”

And yet you never was able to answer that question.  If you did bring up a source that validates what you said, then I must have missed it.  If I have, would you mind bringing it up again so that I can look at it?

Anyway… whereas you were never able to demonstrate that your undersanding of “elohim” was the correct one… in contrast, I listed various sources and materials to show that “elohim” can mean… and can be defined as… and can refer to God.

The sources I used were your own words… NETNotes… Wikipedia…  http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/names_of_g-d.html…  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm… and over 23 English translations of the Bible.  Even the NWT, which absolutely does not believe that Jesus is God, they nevertheless defined and translated the word “elohim” as God in Hebrews 1:8.

If you are not willing to concede that you were wrong in saying that “elohim” can never mean anything other than “leader/ruler/judge”… then we are stuck right here.  We can't go any further.

If however, you are willing to admit that you made a mistake and had overstated your case concerning the meaning of “elohim”, then the next step is to see WHICH MEANING of “elohim” (from the nine you supplied for us) should be used in Hebrews 1:8.

As far as I can tell, the only way we can determine that question is to look at the context.

Ah… but we are stuck again, because you were adamant that you were never using context to determine how “elohim” should be used and defined in Hebrews.

So, you have another choice to make now.  The first choice was to decide whether or not you were mistaken about the possible meanings of the word “elohim”.  The 2nd choice you have to make now,  is whether or not you are going to use context to determine how “elohim” is to be used in meaning in Hebrews.

If you choose not to admit that you have to use context for the word “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8… then you are going to have to show us, in some manner, why you believe “elohim” in Hebrews means “leader” out of the 9 possible meanings for the word… and do this WITHOUT using context.

If you can't do that, and you nevertheless want to proceed to show me that Hebrews 1:8 does not have God calling Jesus God, you then will have to admit that you need to use context.

If you decide to go that route, then I'm going to assume that the context you will be using is Psalms 45:6 since you keep bringing it up.

And since I am not debating myself, you will have to let me know what you are going to decide to do.

If you want to use Psalms 45:6 as context for “elohim”, then let me know, and I will proceed to analyze Psalms 45:6 and see what it is saying and why it was being used in Hebrews 1:8.

If you don't want to use Psalms 45:6 as context… but you want to prove that “elohim” can only mean “leader” in Hebrews 1:8 and NOTHNG ELSE… without using context… then we are still stuck with you trying to prove that you are right in your assertion that “elohim” can only mean “leader/judge/ruler” (and nothing else)… but only REFERS to God.

So the ball is in your court.

——————————–

Just so that there is no confusion, I will answer a couple of your questions that are directly related to this post.

Quote

The word “elohim” could refer to God Almighty, but many times in scripture did NOT refer to God Almighty.  Can we agree on this?

I supplied multiple sources  to show that the word “elohim” can refer to God AND it also can mean God and be defined as God.  It's not an either/or proposition as you keep making it out to be.

Quote

Therefore, for one to be called by this word did not NECESSARILY mean that one was “God Almighty”.  Can we agree on this?

It can BOTH mean that one was God (like Jesus)… or not necessarly mean that one was God (like anyone besides Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God).

But the important question is how do we know which is which?   I believe that the NWT, and the over 23 English Translations I gave you… may have used context to determine it.  And I think you are going to be forced to use context as well.  If you don't feel you need to, then I am more than willing to see how you will prove that “elohim” should be translated as “leader” in Hebrews 1:8 and not God.  

But seeing that you have yet given any evidence or proof for your position on “elohim” at all, I'm not all that confident that you will be able to.  At least I have not seen any proofs or evidence from your confusing language.

Quote

Is the “elohim” referred to in Psalm 45:6 “God Almighty” in your opinion?  YES or NO?

I believe that “elohim” in Psalm 45:6 is refering to Jesus, the coming Messiah… as God.

I could be wrong of course, but we can't
use or discuss Psalm 45:6 until you admit that you are using it as context for Hebrews 1:8.   If you aren't using it as context, then you FIRST have to prove that “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8 has to mean “leader” and not God… without the use of context.  Which you have yet to do.

God Bless
Francis

P.S. Do I get some kind of prize for reaching 100 posts?

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

You are getting very good at avoiding points and twisting things around.  Maybe you should never have paid attention to the other thread.  Maybe then you would have continued debating honestly and directly instead of learning how they do it.    They are masters.  Francis, can you show me the post where I said something to the effect of “Context doesn't matter”?  Nevermind………I won't even bother dealing with the games you've begun to play.  Instead, I will roll the ball forward and move on.

As far as summing up our debate so far, you have spoken correctly.  Micah says Jesus will rule in YHVH's power.  Revelation confirms that our God is STILL Jesus' God.  And you believe that in Hebrews, YHVH is calling Jesus “God Almighty”.

But you are wrong about who has to PROVE what to whom.  Micah shows Jesus as someone other than and lessor to his God.  Revelations shows Jesus as someone other than and lessor to HIS God.  And so far, you say you've listed FOUR things that explain how one can call another “MY God” without it really meaning that one is “THEIR God”, but I must have went right to the one that was an actual scripture, and not trinitarian gibberish.  And that scripture you listed, (at least the one that caught my eye), is Hebrews 1:8.  Yet instead of saying Jesus is God Almighty like you want it to, it just further confirms MY point that Jesus is someone other than and lessor to his God, for it points out once again that it is the God OF Jesus who placed him in a position of honor.  And that brings us to here:

YES, I think Hebrews 1:8 has to do with Psalm 45:6………..since it is a direct quote of that Psalm.    And YES, I would like you to explain how this Psalm is about God Almighty being placed above his companions by HIS God.

You see Francis, the scriptures speak of ONE God.  HIS (not THEIR) name is YHVH.  HE (not THEY) has an only begotten Son.  HE sent that Son to earth to die as a sacrifice for us all, so HE could once again be righteous in HIS own eyes when calling any of us “righteous”.  We are made in His image.  And none of us are three separate persons comprising one “Human-head”, so why would the God whose image we are all made in be three separate persons comprising one “God-head”?  

This is just the tip of the iceberg, Francis.  But my point is that I am taking the scriptures for what they say.  Our one God has one begotten Son.  And since none of our sons are the same exact BEING as we are, it makes no sense to assume the One who created us IN HIS IMAGE would be a Father/Son combo being.  And due to the absense of any scripture that SPECIFICALLY says God consists of three persons, or that a Son could be the same exact being as his Father, or that the Son OF God Almighty could actually BE God Almighty, supporters of the trinity doctrine have been forced to IMAGINE that certain scriptures say things that they don't really say.  

So make no mistake about this debate.  I'm not out to prove to YOU that Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore can't be God Himself………for that is just basic common sense.  It is YOU, who is trying to PROVE to ME that you can SCRIPTURALLY defend you nonsensical doctrine that goes against every fiber of common sense and logic that our Creator (HE, not THEY) gave us.

And if all you have to prove 1:8 is “20 translations capped the G”, then you are doing us both a huge disservice.  Because the same 20 capped the G in Exodus 7:1 referring to Moses, yet he was not God Almighty.  

So YES, please do explain how Psalm 45:6 referred to God Almighty placing God Almighty above His companions.  But do it knowing that it is YOU who is defending a doctrine that is never SPECIFICALLY or EXPLICITELY taught in scripture.  It is YOU who is turning human logic upside down by implying that a father and son can be the same exact being.  Do it knowing that in order to defend your doctrine, you need to show SPECIFICALLY that Jesus actually IS God Almighty.  And it will take much more than having the word “elohim” applied to him, for so did Deborah and others who weren't God Almighty or “false gods”.

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

btw… I have a brother named Mike.      But he is not as smart as you are.

Quote

You are getting very good at avoiding points and twisting things around.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have to disagree.  I've learned that it is very easy to lose focus and get sidetracked and confused during a long drawn out protracted debate/discussion.  It happens to me… and it happens to everyone, including you.

The closest I can come to in describing how I discuss things in here, is the picture of a chess game.

I keep reminding myself to look at the entire board (discussion) in relation to the point that is being debated.  If I see someone make a move (raise a point or make an argument) that I feel is not really relevant and instead is designed to throw me off as bait, I will indeed sidestep it so as to not fall into a trap or so as to not be led down a fruitless endgame.

Many times I will let a person keep talking, as you did in the other thread, in the hope that you will say things that will either clear things up… which I feel is to my advantage… or that you will say things that will trap yourself…. which is also to my advantage.

Now…  I'm not a grandmaster or anything like that in chess… and neither am I the equilevant in status in a debate/discussion… but I nevertheless do my best to keep focused and try my darndest to not let another person trap me with irrelevant points, etc.

I think you are smart enough to do the same thing for your side as well.

So whereas you may FEEL or THINK I am avoiding points, I see it as avoiding unnecessary or irrelevant points/arugments (chess moves).  Sometimes you will raise a good argument, but they were not Prima Facie questions, and so I will put them on the “back burner” and get to them when it is proper… that is in order… after the Prima Facie stuff is dealt with first… as we are doing with Micah for example.

As for twisting things?  No way.  I never do that.  To twist something to me is like lying.. and I will NEVER do that.  What I do in here I do in front of God and I will have to answer for it.  More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are saying.  Anyway… that is my humble opinion.

Quote

Maybe you should never have paid attention to the other thread.  Maybe then you would have continued debating honestly and directly instead of learning how they do it.  They are masters.

The more information I get from you, the better I know you and how you think and what your position is.   As for “debating honestly”… I will object to that and ask for an apology.

You have no right to say that I'm being dishonest.  This is the SAME THING you did with the signers of the 1st Nicene Creed.  What you do is ASSUME you can read another person's mind and thus be able to know if they are lying or being dishonest or if they signed something “in passing”, etc.

For you to know if someone is lying or being dishonest, you have to know that what they write and claim as “fact”,  is actually CONTRARY to what they KNOW is “fact”.  And since I have never done any such thing, there is NO WAY you are going to be able to demonstrate that I've been lying or I have been dishonest in my discussion with you.

I may have been niave or mistaken in something I wrote, but I was never lying or dishonest.   I resent that very much.  I didn't engage in this disucssion with you so that  I can have my integrity questioned and smeared falsely.   So as I see it, if you want this discussion to continue you have two choices before you.  Apologize or show how I have been dishonest.

Otherwise, I am going to withdraw.  I will finish up this post, but until you decide what you are going to do, I will not go any further.

We may disagree about whether Jesus is God and whether the Holy Spirit is God and whether the Trinity is true.  But as Christians (I'm assuming you refer to yourself as a Christian) we are to set an example for the rest of the world of the high moral integrity which God and Jesus has modeled and exhibited for us.   So there is no excuse to call each other “dishonest” unless it can be proven.

————————–

Quote

Francis, can you show me the post where I said something to the effect of “Context doesn't matter”?

Look carefully at what you just asked.  This question of yours only serves to UNDERSCORE the confusion going on because of the way you write things and articulate things.  There is NO WAY I ever said or implied that you said something to the effect that “Context doesn't matter”.  

Look at what I wrote to you on Jan. 17 2011 at 07:55 and then look at your answer:

Quote

Francis wrote to Mike: If so, your next step appears to be an attempt to use context to help determine how we should translate elohim (theos) in Hebrews 1:8. Mike responds to Francis with this: No again, sir.  We need to use the context to find out who it was that was being called “leader” in each situation.  If the context says, “In the beginning, Leader created the heavens and the earth”, then we know that Leader is YHVH.  But the word “Leader” doesn't begin to MEAN “YHVH”.  Do you understand?  Here, let me give you my favorite example that Dennison makes fun of me for……..the “President” example:

As anyone can plainly see, I was being VERY SPECIFIC in my statement to you.  I was speaking of using context to translate “elohim”.  I didn't say anything about you believing or saying that  CONTEXT DOES NOT MATTER at all… but I was making sure I understood HOW you were using context.

You understood this difference in understanding and answered NO SIR… but instead you were saying that you WERE USING context to find out who “elohim” was REFERING TO.  You were NOT using context to find out the meaning/definition of “elohim”, but to who the word REFERED TO.

I understood EXACTLY what you said, and I reflected that in my subsequent posts to you, especially my last one.  

For example, here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE TO YOU… (I went ahead and underlined the relevant words for the purpose of this disucssion):

Quote

… then the next step is to see WHICH MEANING of “elohim” (from the nine you supplied for us) should be used in Hebrews 1:8. As far as I can tell, the only way we can determine that question is to look at the context. Ah… but we are stuck again, because you were adamant that you were never using context to determine how “elohim” should be used and de fined in Hebrews.

Can you see tha Mike?  I KNEW you wanted to use context to determine who “elohim” should REFER TO… but I was suggesting that you will be forced to use context to also DEFINE “elohim” it's meaning.

So you are plainly mistaken if you think I ever said or implied that you said something to the effect of “Context doesn't matter”.

This is a GREAT example to demonstrate how you confuse things and that you are not really following what I am saying to you.  This is why I think you sincerely believe that I am “twisting” things and “playing games” and “avoiding” things, etc.  It's not because I am doing any such things, but it is because you are not following or understanding or tracking what I am saying to you.  You appear to be confused because you have continually made confusing and contradictory remarks.

Anyway… that's how it all appears to me.

——————————–

Quote

Nevermind………I won't even bother dealing with the games you've begun to play.

As I said above, I have not been playing games.  I think you sincerely think I am playing games, but only because I think you are confused as to what is actually being said to you.

No one is playing games with you.  And btw… so that there is no confusion, when I use the “chess game”… it is used as a metaphor… as a word picture.  It DOESN'T MEAN that I am playing a game.  The “chess game” metaphore is describing the THOUGHT PROCESS that is involved in strategy and thinking ahead and keeping focused.

Quote

Instead, I will roll the ball forward and move on.

Very good.  But remember, If you don't either apologize for calling me dishonest, or prove that I am being dishonest, this post of mine will be the last in this debate.

Quote

As far as summing up our debate so far, you have spoken correctly.  Micah says Jesus will rule in YHVH's power.  Revelation confirms that our God is STILL Jesus' God.  And you believe that in Hebrews, YHVH is calling Jesus “God Almighty”.

If you don't believe that YHVH is calling Jesus God in Hebrews, then why do you believe that Revelation confirms that our God is still Jesus' God?  The same word,  “elohim”, is being used by Jesus in Revelation when He says “my God” (my elohim)… and in Hebrews when JHVH is calling Jesus “elohim”?  If you can say that Revelation confirms that our God is still Jesus' God, then why can't Hebrews confirm that YHVH is calling Jesus God, since the same word “elohim” is being use in both scriptures?

Quote

But you are wrong about who has to PROVE what to whom.

Could be.  I'm far from perfect.  But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.  Are you willing to listen to me?

Quote

Micah shows Jesus as someone other than and lessor to his God.

Yes… but remember, to understand what Micah means, the Prima Facie question we needed to address was if Jesus is God Incarnate as the Messiah when he was on earth.   The answer to that question will determine how Micah should be understood.   We both agreed, and we have been trying to answer that question.

Quote

Revelations shows Jesus as someone other than and lessor to HIS God.

No.  Or using your own words… NO SIR.    You have yet to prove that when Jesus called God “my God”, that MEANT that Jesus was someone other than and lessor to HIS God.

You see Mike… when you make the statement above, you are BEGGING QUESTION!!!!

Th question before us is this… DOES Revelation show that Jesus as someone other than and lessor to HIS God?  That is what we are debating.   You say it does, and I say it doesn't.

So in rebuttal, you can't just repeat your own side as proof that your side is CORRECT!!!  Can't you see that?

In effect you are arguing this way:

Revelations shows Jesus as someone other than and lessor to HIS God.  How do I know?  Because Revelations shows Jesus as someone other than and lessor to HIS God

This is an example of arguing in circles… or begging the question.  Because the question is this: DOES Revelation show that Jesus as someone other than and lessor to HIS God?

Can you see this Mike?

Quote

And so far, you say you've listed FOUR things that explain how one can call another “MY God” without it really meaning that one is “THEIR God”…

Here again you are confused or not following what I have been saying.   I was saying that Jesus can call God “my God” WITHOUT implying or meaning that Jesus was INFERIOR OR LESS than His God.  That is what I was saying and arguing.

I DID NOT… DID NOT.. DID NOT say what you just said above.  The four things I listed was NOT to explain how one can call another “MY God” without it really meaning that one is “THEIR God”.  Instead I listed them to show that Jesus can call God “my God, and not mean that He is inferior to or less than God.  Of course I believe that God is Jesus' God… just like in Hebrews it says that Jesus is God's God.   If God can call Jesus God in Hebrews, then Jesus can call God “my God” without implying or infering inferiority or less than.  And the 4 things I listed was to explain how this was logically possible.

Can you see this Mike?

Quote

but I must have went right to the one that was an actual scripture, and not trinitarian gibberish.

Well there you go.  If this not evidence of how incredibly biased you are and that you have no wish to listen to me or to the other side, then I don't know what a better example would be.

You tactics are becoming apparent.  First you call me dishonest.  Then you call what I believe in as gibberish.  What a wonderful Christian example to put on display for the world to see.  

Quote

And that scripture you listed, (at least the one that caught my eye), is Hebrews 1:8.  Yet instead of s aying Jesus is God Almighty like you want it to, it just further confirms MY point that Jesus is someone other than and lessor to his God, for it points out once again that it is the God OF Jesus who placed him in a position of honor.

This is another example of begging the question… of arguing in circles.   You are ASSUMING BEFORE HAND that “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8 means “leader” and not God as the vast majority (even NWT) of scholars and English Translators have translated it.   When you ASSUME BEFOREHAND as you are doing, and ignore the question of whether you are correct or not, then of OF COURSE it is going to read the way you want it to read.

The debate over Hebrews 1:8 is WHETHER OR NOT your tranlsation is correct.  So just like above, you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct!!!

I'll repeat it because it is worht repeating:  

you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct    To argue like that is to argue in circles… to beg the question.

I'm not arguing in such a way, because I have been giving you what I feel is evidence that demonstrates that the English Translators have it correct.  I'm not arguing that “elohim” means God because “elohim” means God.  I'm arguing that “elohim” means God in Hebrews 1:8 because  of this and that and this.

Now.. you were on the right track when you tried to justify your translation of “elohim” into “leader” earlier.  But the moment you started to argue in circles… begging the question… as you just did above… you lost focus and got confused.

And if you believe that “elohim” can ONLY MEAN “leader/ruler/judge” and can ONLY REFER to God, but not mean God… then we are stuck here until we get that resolved.

Quote

And that brings us to here: YES, I think Hebrews 1:8 has to do with Psalm 45:6………..since it is a direct quote of that Psalm.

No one is arguing against that.  What I wrote was that if you are going to use Psalm 45:6 as context to define what “elohim” means, then you have to say that.  But when you do, you are then admitting that you were wrong when you said that “elohim” doesn't need context to know what it MEANS… that you use context to show who “elohim” REFERS TO.  

If you are going to only use Psalm 45:6 to show who 'elohim” refers to, then I'm saying that you can't do that because the Prima Facie question of what “elohim” can MEAN has not been fully addressed.

You can't avoid or dodge or ignore the fact that we are STILL debating what “elohim” means or CAN mean.  And because of that, we CAN'T logically jump to Psalm 45:6 because to so, without first resolving the issue of what “elohim” can mean, you are putting the cart before the horse.

Now.. if you want to concede that “elohim” CAN MEAN God as well as “leader”… then we can proceed with Psalm 45:6.  But since I want to discuss things in a rational and logical order, I will not put the cart before the horse and jumb to Psalm 45:6 when the issue of what “elohim” can mean is still before us.

Quote

And YES, I would like you to explain how this Psalm is about God Almighty being placed above his companions by HIS God.

You have a couple of things that need to be done first.

1)… Apologize for calling me dishonest

2)… concede that “elohim” can mean God as well as mean “leader”.

Quote

You see Francis, the scriptures speak of ONE God.

Yes… it is good to see that you agree with Trinitarians on that point.

Quote

HIS (not THEIR) name is YHVH.  HE (not THEY) has an only begotten Son.

LOL.  Talking about getting off track and losing focus.  wow.

All I need to do is demonstrate that Jesus is God… and all these other arguments of yours dissolve away.  I think the Trinity explains and answers very well these other arguments of yours.  But you don't believe that the Trinity is true and you don't believe that Jesus is God.

And as we BOTH agreed, the Prima Facie question that needed to be addressed was the question of whether or not Jesus is God.  That is what we are FIRST debating.  And in that quest, we are currently looking at Revelations 3:12 and Hebrews 1:8… and if we get to it, even Psalm 45:6.

Once we deal with those issues and come to a resolution, then you are more than welcome to ask these other questions.

Let's do this in logical order.

Quote

HE sent that Son to earth to die as a sacrifice for us all, so HE could once again be righteous in HIS own eyes when calling any of us “righteous”.

We differ in opinion on that.  I don't think the scriptures teach what you are saying at all.  And to be honest,  I don't really understand what you are saying to begin with.  What does the “HE” and “HIS” refering to?  To Jesus or God?

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

We are made in His image.  And none of us are three separate persons comprising one “Human-head”, so why would the God whose image we are all made in be three separate persons comprising one “God-head”?

Obviously we need to first understand what the sentence “We are made in His image” means.   And btw, I've already answered this before.  Using your logic, then I can ask why would the God whose image we are all made in the image of, make us be flesh?  God is not flesh.  Can you see this Mike?

Can you see how important it is that we first understand what the sentence “We are made in His image” means?

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

This is just the tip of the iceberg, Francis.

What happened to the bombs?  Or even the marshmallows you were using?    Well anyway, since you've changed metaphors,  I will go ahead and use this new one.  Mike, if this is just the tip of the iceberg, then you are on the Titanic and I earnestly implore you to quickly get off of it.

Quote

But my point is that I am taking the scriptures for what they say.

And that's fine if you know what the scriptures meant to the writers who wrote them.  It is more important to know what the writers meant than to know what you think they mean.

The scriptures were written in Greek and Hebrew by people thousands of years before our time.  And they may have said something that may not be entirely how you understand them.  

The words “we are made in His image” is a good example.   What did the author mean?  Were they being literal or metaphoric or something else?  When I say “I hate fags” and you do nothing more than take what I say for what they say… you will be humiliated and embarrassed if you first didn't try and find out what I mean when i said those words because those words may mean something differently to me than to you.

“I hate fags” would mean I hate cigerattes to a British person.  It would mean I hate homosexuals if I was an American.  But you can't know what was the meaning if all you did was take what I said for what the words said.

You can't do that today in our language… and you can't do that with the scriptures.

Quote

Our one God has one begotten Son.

 

Yes… it is good to see that you agree with Trinitarians on that point.

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

And since none of our sons are the same exact BEING as we are, it makes no sense to assume the One who created us IN HIS IMAGE would be a Father/Son combo being.

The Trinity resloves any such difficulty in understanding.  The difficulty is with you becaue you don't believe the Trinity is true.  The Trinity haramonizes the scriptures so that none of them have to be abandoned or changed to fit into any preconceived theology we may have.

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

And due to the absense of any scripture that SPECIFICALLY says God consists of three persons, or that a Son could be the same exact being as his Father, or that the Son OF God Almighty could actually BE God Almighty, supporters of the trinity doctrine have been forced to IMAGINE that certain scriptures say things that they don't really say.

The Trinity actually harmonizes scriptures and makes sense of those scriptures that has Jesus not only making Himself equal to God, but also those verses where attributes of God are given to Jesus and accepted by Jesus.

Without the Trinity, the scriptures don't make sense.  They appear to contain many contradictions which the atheists love to exploit.  But those “contradictions” immediately disappear when the Trinity is introduced.

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

So make no mistake about this debate.

It is you who is getting off track and losing focus.

Quote

I'm not out to prove to YOU that Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore can't be God Himself………for that is just basic common sense.

If the Trinity is not true, then it is common sense.  But if the Trinity is true, then it doesn't logically follow that because Jesus is the Son of God, that somehow must mean that Jesus is not God.

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

It is YOU, who is trying to PROVE to ME that you can SCRIPTURALLY defend you nonsensical doctrine that goes against every fiber of common sense and logic that our Creator (HE, not THEY) gave us.

Here we go with your shining example of what being a Christian is like for the whole world to see.

First you call me dishonest.  Then you call my beliefs gibberish.  Now you are calling them nonsensical.

What I've been doing is trying to demonstrate (prove if you prefer) that Jesus is God.  If I can do that much, then I've gone a long way in proving and explaining the Trinity and other scriptures about Jesus.

I was willing to start with John and the “I AM” statements as part of my opening argument.  But it was you who jumped in with Micah… and then Revelations in an effort to prove to me that Jesus is not God.   And in defense, I brought up Hebrews 1:8.  We are here because that is where you brought us, with your line of questioning and your objections.

So now that we are here discusing those scriptures (Micah and Revelations and Hebrews)… let's deal with them and not get off track and lose focus.

Quote

And if all you have to prove 1:8 is “20 translations capped the G”, then you are doing us both a huge disservice.  Because the same 20 capped the G in Exodus 7:1 referring to Moses, yet he was not God Almighty.

Here again you are exhibiting your confusion.  I never once said or implied or inferred or suggested or intimated that all I have to go on is over 20 English Translations that translates the word “elohim” as God in Hebrews 1:8.

Not to mention that one of those translations (NWT) is one that completely rejects that Jesus is God… and yet it still translates “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8 as God.

As for Exodus 7:1… Moses is either referred to as god with a little “g” to Paraoh… or AS God to Paraoh… or LIKE  God to Paraoh… but never does the scriptures say that Moses IS God or that God will make Moses God.

Exodus 7:1 (King James Version)
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Exodus 7:1 (New King James Version)
So the LORD said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your proph
et.

Exodus 7:1 (New American Standard Bible)
Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. “

Exodus 7:1 (Amplified Bible)
THE LORD said to Moses, Behold, I make you as God to Pharaoh [to declare My will and purpose to him]; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

Exodus 7:1 (English Standard Version)
And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.”

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

So YES, please do explain how Psalm 45:6 referred to God Almighty placing God Almighty above His companions.

I've already explained to you that I will not put the cart before the horse and discuss Psalm 45:6 before we have resolved the other issues before us.

You have a couple of things that need to be done first.

1)… Apologize for calling me dishonest

2)… concede that “elohim” can mean God as well as mean “leader”.

3)… concede that you are now wanting to use Psalm 45:6 as context to translate “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8.

If you don't do #1, then I am going to withdraw because I'm not interested in having my integrity and honesty dragged into the mud by someone who is supposed to be my Christian brother.

If you don't concede #2, then we are stuck there and must resolve that first.

If you do concede #2,  but now you are using Psalm 45:6 as context to translate “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8, then you must concede #3.

Quote

But do it knowing that it is YOU who is defending a doctrine that is never SPECIFICALLY or EXPLICITELY taught in scripture.

And neither does it say in Psalm 45:6 that it is SPECIFICALLY or EXPLICITELY referring to a mere man or even to one of the Kings of Israel in the OT.  All it says is “a King”.  And there is no name attached to that King.

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

It is YOU who is turning human logic upside down by implying that a father and son can be the same exact being.

The Trinity does not teach that God is like biological fathers and sons here on earth.  The Trinity may not be easily understood on a purely logical level… and as long as we are earthbound… we may never completely understand the Trinity… but the Trinity never goes against reason.

How can every aspect of an infinite God be fully and completely understood by a finite mind?  To expect otherwise is itself turning HUMAN logic upside down.    No scientist has to understand fully and everything about a black hole to recognize that it exists nonetheless.

So I don't expect that anyone… who is earthbound and limited to their finite human minds… will ever fully and completely understand the Trinity… or even God Himself.

Surely you Mike don't understand everything about God?  Of course you don't.  So why the big objection about the Trinity when the Trinity can be part of that lack of understanding you have about everything that has to do with God?  You've already admitted that you don't, and can't understand everything about God… why can't the trinity fit into that part of your lack of understanding?

The surest way to show that the trinity is false is either prove it scripturally or logically, and you have done neither.

But anyway… I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

Quote

Do it knowing that in order to defend your doctrine, you need to show SPECIFICALLY that Jesus actually IS God Almighty.  And it will take much more than having the word “elohim” applied to him, for so did Deborah and others who weren't God Almighty or “false gods”.

I'm not going to get off track with our present debate.  We are currently dealing with Hebrews 1:8… the word “elohim”… Revelations 3:12… and Psalm 45:6 when we get to it… if we do.

You also have a couple of things that need to be done first.

1)… Apologize for calling me dishonest

2)… concede that “elohim” can mean God as well as mean “leader”.

3)… concede that you are now wanting to use Psalm 45:6 as context to translate “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8.

If you don't do #1, then I am going to withdraw because I'm not interested in having my integrity and honesty dragged into the mud by someone who is supposed to be my Christian brother.

If you don't concede #2, then we are stuck there and must resolve that first.

If you do concede #2,  but now you are using Psalm 45:6 as context to translate “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8, then you must concede #3.

God Bless
Francis

ps.. I didn't have time to proofread, so there may be a couple of mistakes.  i will do it later and put any changes in red so that everyone can see what changes, if any, I have made.

pss.   I never got a prize for my 100th post.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 21 2011,05:04)

As far as I can tell, the only way we can determine that question is to look at the context. Ah… but we are stuck again, because you were adamant that you were never using context to determine how “elohim” should be used and defined in Hebrews.

Don't play pretty little words games with me, Francis.  I have neither the time nor the patience for it.  And besides, I could do it right back to you.  You say I called you “dishonest”?  Show me where.  Show me where I CLEARLY said you were being dishonest.  I said “honestly AND directly”.  Maybe I was implying that you were still debating honestly, BUT NO LONGER DIRECTLY.  

What you implied in your above quote is that we need context, but that means we're stuck because I don't want to use context.  So you can pretty it up all you like, (as I just did with what I said about honesty), but the message I received from what you posted is that I won't use context.

And I could come down all condescendingly on you as well, saying, “This is how YOUR confusion has tripped you up, Francis.  You READ that I called you 'dishonest', but if you look at the actual words I posted, that is not the case, is it?”

So let's both let it go.  I have no time for these kinds of shenanigans anyway.  We are having a debate about scripture – let's get to it.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 21 2011,05:04)

Now.. if you want to concede that “elohim” CAN MEAN God as well as “leader”… then we can proceed with Psalm 45:6.  But since I want to discuss things in a rational and logical order, I will not put the cart before the horse and jumb to Psalm 45:6 when the issue of what “elohim” can mean is still before us.

I have already answered this point.  I do NOT believe that the word “elohim” MEANS “Supernatural Supreme Creator of All”.  Just as I do NOT believe that “God” is a NAME of our Creator.  But since almost every source I've looked at shows “God” as a NAME and shows “God” as a MEANING of elohim, I will concede the point…………for now – in an effort to move forward.

In return, I would like you to acknowledge the point that not all who were called “elohim” in scripture were God Almighty, and therefore, being called “elohim” in no way PROVES someone IS God Almighty.

Please verbally and DIRECTLY acknowledge this very clear scriptural FACT…………and then please show me how you come to understand that the elohim in Psalm 45:6 is God Almighty.

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Quote

Don't play pretty little words games with me, Francis.  I have neither the time nor the patience for it.  And besides, I could do it right back to you.  You say I called you “dishonest”?  Show me where.  Show me where I CLEARLY said you were being dishonest.  I said “honestly AND directly”.  Maybe I was implying that you were still debating honestly, BUT NO LONGER DIRECTLY.

You said “Maybe then you would have continued debating honestly and directly”

Notice the words “would have continued”?  This is indicating that something had occured in the past… but not presently.    It's very clear from those words that you are saying that I have stopped debating honestly.  And what does that mean then?  It means that you think I'm debating dishonestly… or that I am not continuing to debate honestly as I was in the past… and which you wish I would have continued to do so.   If I have always been debating honestly, and if I continue to debate honestly presently, then there is no need to say that maybe I would have continued to debate honestly.  

If you were implying that i was STILL debating honestly, but no longer directly, then you would have written it that way.  It would read as follows:

“Mabye then you would CONTINUE to debate honestly,  but maybe you would have CONTINUED debating directly”

But when you wrote “would HAVE CONTINUED“, you said that I had stopped and was now not debating honestly nor directly.

Bottom line is that you didn't say “would continue” or even “still continue”…. but instead you said “would have continued”.  This clearly shows that NOT ONLY do you wish I would have continued to debate honestly… but that I would also have continued to debate directly as well.

I fear that it appears that it is you who is playing word games in here Mike.

Your words indicate that I have stopped debating honestly… which means that I am now debating dishonestly.

I resent that very much.  I would like an apology before I continue.

When I make a mistake, I don't shy away from admitting it and apologizing.  I know you have as much courage as I do to admit when you make a mistake.  

Respectfully
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 22 2011,04:46)

When I make a mistake, I don't shy away from admitting it and apologizing.  I know you have as much courage as I do to admit when you make a mistake.

Hi Francis,

What you said about me “never using context to determine how elohim should be USED” was NOT accurate.  But since you asked nicely this time instead of issuing an ultimatum…………and since I know what's coming for you in this debate and don't want you to quit over silliness………I'm sorry for implying dishonesty.  I should have used the word “accurately” instead of “honestly”.

But the “directly” part IS a big issue lately.  So, let's prove you can be DIRECT by DIRECTLY answering the following simple question.   This is the ONLY issue I'm interested in hearing about in your next post, and the ONLY issue I will respond to until it's resolved.

Francis, are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are neither God Almighty nor “false gods”?  YES or NO?

Please address ONLY this bolded question DIRECTLY.  The basis for this question is simple.  If there were others in scripture who were also called “elohim”, and they were neither God Almighty nor false gods, then being called “elohim” does not…………listen carefully here………..IN AND OF ITSELF prove that one was God Almighty.

And if being called “elohim”…………IN AND OF ITSELF…………..does not PROVE that Jesus is God Almighty, then it's time to move on to the “YOUR God” part of Hebrews 1:9.  Because the bottom line of your argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that “Elohim called Jesus elohim”.  And if being called “elohim” didn't NECESSARILY mean Jesus was “God Almighty”, then you'll have to do better in the future.

So, PLEASE…………..just answer the ONE question HONESTLY and DIRECTLY.

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

First of all, before I  go through your most recent post, I do want to say that I accept your apology… even though I have to confess that it comes across as a bit insincere to me the moment you characterized the “honesty” issue as silliness… and when you again raised the “honesty” issue by writing:
“So, PLEASE…………..just answer the ONE question HONESTLY and DIRECTLY.

So we first see that you thought the whole “honesty” issue as being silly…  and then right after you admit that you should have used the word “accurately” instead of “honestly”… you use the word “honestly”  AGAIN… instead of using the word “accurately”!!!

I find that odd… but then, maybe that is just me and I'm simply dense.  Which of course is very possible.

Note:  BTW… your ONE question was actually TWO questions.

—————————–

Quote

What you said about me “never using context to determine how elohim should be USED” was NOT accurate.

and…

Quote

…but the message I received from what you posted is that I won't use context.

This statement of yours about what you claim I said, is itself not accurate in my opinion.  This becomes very obvious if you had finished my statement instead of chopping it up… and also if you had read what I had written prior to that statement of mine.  So let's look at what I said with those two things in mind.

Here is the part you quoted: “never using context to determine how elohim should be USED”

And here is the REST OF the above quote I had said.  I will underline the rest so you can see:

“you were never using context to determine how “elohim” should be used and defined in Hebrews.”

So right there we can see that my message was completely different than the one you are now claiming I said about how you won't use context.

Of course you were using context. We all know you were using context.  But you were using context to find out who it was that was being called “leader” (one of many meanings of “elohim”) in each situation.  

You said as much when you wrote this:

“No again, sir.  We need to use the context to find out who it was that was being called “leader” in each situation.

See that Mike?  We already know that you were using context… but everytime you did, it was never to DEFINE elohim… but instead, you were using context to determine WHO the word was REFERRING TO in each situation.

And the reason why you KEPT using context to determine who the word was referring to… and kept refusing to use context to DEFINE what elohim meant… was because you were insistent that elohim SIMPLY MEANT LEADER/JUDGE/RULER… and nothing else.

You not only did this with me, but it was abundantly clear in the other thread that you were doing the same thing as I watched you tangling with Keith and Dennison who kept telling you that it was context that determined how “elohim” should be DEFINED, and you kept arguing with them.

So now let's go back to the quote of mine that you were using.  When I wrote and said that you were never using context to determine how “elohim” should be used and defined in Hebrews… this was a correct statement because you were only using context one way.  Not both ways.  You were not using context to BOTH determine who elohim referred to AND what elohim meant.  And that was because you had a prior commitment to only one definition for the word “elohim”.

So Mike… how was I not accurate in what I said about you never using context to determine how elohim should be used AND defined”?   I never said that you didn't USE context.  Of course you used context and you told us how you were using context.  But I plainly said that you didnt use it to BOTH determine who elohim should refer to AND how it should be DEFINED.

—————————-

Quote

Francis, are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are neither God Almighty nor “false gods”?  YES or NO? Please address ONLY this bolded question DIRECTLY.

First of all, this is actually two different questions you are asking me.

The first question you are asking is: Are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not God Almighty?

The second question you are asking is: Are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not “false gods”?

Now, the second question is a bit confusing because there are no  words such as “false gods”, which is part of the  definition for the word “elohim”.  

“elohim” is not defined as “false god(s)”

So while there are elohims in the scriptures whom people will falsely claim is God… none of the elohims are “false gods” in and of themselves, when they are simply called “elohims”. What determines if an elohim can be put into the classification of a false god is the context.

For example… rulers/judges/leaders are not false gods unless they claim or are claimed to be God.

“divine ones” are not false gods unless they claim or are claimed to be God.

“angels” are not false gods unless they claim or are claimed to be God.

“gods” are not false gods unless they claim or are claimed to be God.

“god, goddess” are not false gods unless they claim or are claimed to be God.

“godlike ones” are not false gods unless they claim or are claimed to be God.

“Works or special possessions of God” are not false gods unless they are claimed to be God.

So to answer your second question, as I understand your question… the answer is yes because NONE of the elohims in scripture are “false gods” as elohim is defined.  That is how I understand your question and how I understand the word “elohim” is being defined.

Now…  If you had instead asked: Are there elohims mentioned in the scriptures who are “false gods”?, then the question would have been no because once again, “false gods” is not part of the definition of “elohim”.  

BUT EVEN SO… can elohims mentioned in the scriptures be falsely referred to as God or claim to be God?  Yes, and so in that sense, an elohim can be classified as a “false god”.  But they are classified as such not by definition, but by context.

Anyway…  because of the way you asked the original question,  elohims are NEVER “false gods” because “false gods” is not part of the definition and meaning of “elohim”.  

To determine if an elohim can be put into the classification of a false god, you need more than just a definition… you need context.

Now lets get back to your first question: Are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not God Almighty?

I am very, very troubled and concerned about this question of yours because in your post,  you are inferring that you had to ask this question because I have not been direct in my
answer to this question in the past.  Look again at what you wrote to me:

But the “directly” part IS a big issue lately.  So, let's prove you can be DIRECT by DIRECTLY answering the following simple question.   This is the ONLY issue I'm interested in hearing about in your next post, and the ONLY issue I will respond to until it's resolved.

It is you… not me… who didn't think that “elohim” had multiple meanings other than “leader”… with God being one of other possible meanings.  It is to you who we had to keep asking the question… are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not simply a “leader”… but God also?

So this question of yours HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED numerous times… and here you have the nerve to ask me a question that was already answered… and making it sound like I have not been direct about what my answer was all this time.  INCREDIBLE!!!!

When I was reading other threads, I kept seeing Keith and Dennison and Jack having to repeatedly tell you, in response to a question of yours… that they had already answered your question.  I was always perplexed by that and didn't quite understand what was going on.  

But now I know.  It's kinda of weird, but I feel like I belong to some kind of club with these other guys.  The “Already Answered Mike's Question” club.  That's why I find your concern over “being direct” to be incredibly ironic coming from you, a person who obviously cannot recognize a “direct answer” when you see it… as evidenced from the constant response of others in here that belong to the “Already Answered Mike's Question” club.

As the following list below will show, I have consistently maintained and told you that that “elohim” CAN MEAN God… but that it doesn't necessarily mean God.  I told you this 15 times because it was YOU WHO KEPT SAYING THAT ELOHIM CAN ONLY MEAN ONE THING… “LEADER/JUDGE/RULER”.

And so in response, I kept saying…  (at least 15 times)… that elohim CAN ALSO MEAN God… and NOT JUST “leader/judge/ruler”.

The only way you wouldn't have understood my clear answer to your above question is if you didn't know what the word “can” means… which would be hard to believe.  Otherwise, as the list below shows… I have answered your above question a minimum of 15 times.

Remember, your question was: Are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not God Almighty?  And since I kept showing you that “elohim” had multiple meanings/definitions, that proves that I had already answered your question that there are elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not God.  

And thus, since I've already answered your question numerous times… your insistence that I have not been direct in answering your question, is completely false, bogus and simply bizarre to say the least.

In the list below, I will underline in red, the relevant words which shows that I have already answered your question at least 15 times now.

My answer #1   posted  on Jan. 20 2011 at 04:24

Quote

Anyway… whereas you were never able to demonstrate that your undersanding of “elohim” was the correct one… in contrast, I listed various sources and materials to show that “elohim” can mean… and can be defined as… and can refer to God. The sources I used were your own words… NETNotes… Wikipedia…  http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/names_of_g-d.html…  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm… and over 23 English translations of the Bible.  Even the NWT, which absolutely does not believe that Jesus is God, they nevertheless defined and translated the word “elohim” as God in Hebrews 1:8. If you are not willing to concede that you were wrong in saying that “elohim” can never mean anything other than “leader/ruler/judge”… then we are stuck right here.  We can't go any further. If however, you are willing to admit that you made a mistake and had overstated your case concerning the meaning of “elohim”, then the next step is to see WHICH MEANING of “elohim” (from the nine you supplied for us) should be used in Hebrews 1:8.

My answer #2  on Jan. 20 2011 at 04:24

Quote

The first choice was to decide whether or not you were mistaken about the possible meanings of the word “elohim”.

My answer #3  on Jan. 20 2011 at 04:24

Quote

If you choose not to admit that you have to use context for the word “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8… then you are going to have to show us, in some manner, why you believe “elohim” in Hebrews means “leader” out of the 9 possible meanings for the word… and do this WITHOUT using context.

My answer #4 on Jan. 20 2011 at 04:24

Quote

If you don't want to use Psalms 45:6 as context… but you want to prove that “elohim” can only mean “leader” in Hebrews 1:8 and NOTHNG ELSE… without using context… then we are still stuck with you trying to prove that you are right in your assertion that “elohim” can only mean “leader/judge/ruler” (and nothing else)… but only REFERS to God.

My answer #5  on Jan. 20 2011 at 04:24

Quote

Mike The word “elohim” could refer to God Almighty, but many times in scripture did NOT refer to God Almighty.  Can we agree on this? Francis I supplied multiple sources  to show that the word “elohim” can refer to God AND it also can mean God and be defined as God.  It's not an either/or proposition as you keep making it out to be

My answer #6  on  Jan. 20 2011 at 04:24

Quote

Mike Therefore, for one to be called by this word did not NECESSARILY mean that one was “God Almighty”.  Can we agree on this? Francis It can BOTH mean that one was God (like Jesus)… or not necessarly mean that one was God (like anyone besides Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God). But the important question is how do we know which is which?   I believe that the NWT, and the over 23 English Translations I gave you… may have used context to determine it.  And I think you are going to be forced to use context as well.  If you don't feel you need to, then I am more than willing to see how you will prove that “elohim” should be tran slated as “leader” in Hebrews 1:8 and not God.

My answer #7 on Jan. 21 2011 at 05:04

Quote

And if you believe that “elohim” can ONLY MEAN “leader/ruler/judge” and can ONLY REFER to God, but not mean God… then we are stuck here until we get that resolved.

My answer #8  on Jan. 21 2011 at 05:04

Quote

Now.. if you want to concede that “elohim” CAN MEAN God as well as “leader”… then we can proceed with Psalm 45:6.

My answer #8 and #9 and #10 on Jan. 21 2011 at 05:04   (I said the following 3 times in the same post)

Quote

You have a couple of things that need to be done first. 2)… concede that “elohim” can mean God as well as mean “leader”.

My answer #11 on  Jan. 19 2011 at 06:57

Quote

Bottom line is that the word “elohim” not only means leader/judge/ruler… but it also can mean.. and it is also defined as God and the true God.

My answer #12 on  Jan. 19 2011 at 06:57

Quote

Well, in the same way, it is also a scriptural fact that being called by the word “God” does not MEAN that one was “God”.   And therefore, just because someone is being called leader (elohim), it also does not MEAN that one is a leader (elohim). Because they in fact may not be a leader (elohim).  Just as there are false gods, so there are false leaders.

My answer #13 on  Jan. 19 2011 at 06:57

Quote

Think about it Mike.  Above, elohim can mean “god” and God.

My answer #14 on Jan. 19 2011 at 06:57

Quote

So while it is true that just because we can call someone God (elohim)… or call someone Leader (elohim)…  or call someone god (elohim)…  or call someone angels (elohim)… or call someone goddess (elohim)… or call someone  a divine one (elohim)… or call someone godlike… it doesn't MEAN that they are. How do we know if we are correct in calling someone God or leader or god or goddess or angel, etc?  By context only.

My answer #15 on Jan. 19 2011 at 06:57

Quote

As the above statements from you has shown, both you and NETNotes says that “elohim” CAN acutally MEAN the true God… and God… as well as 7 other definitions/meanings.

So… as it is abundantly clear from my 15 responses above, I never said or suggested or implied that there weren't elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not God

I have consistently maintained that elohim CAN MEAN God, among other possibilities.

It was you who kept maintaining that elohim DIDN'T MEAN God… but only REFERRED to God.  But as the sources which I brought up demonstrates… elohim can mean God and that being called God CAN MEAN that one IS GOD (like with Jesus and God).

Now if for some reason, my 15 answers from my previous posts… and my answer in the beginning of this post above… if all of the them still doesn't make it abundantly clear to you what my consistent answer has always been in regards to your above question (which would be hard to believe), then let me go even further.

Are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not God Almighty?  

For the 17th direct time… the answer has always been yes.

Now… the  “directly” part HAS NEVER BEEN an issue on my part as my over 15 direct answers to you from my previous posts amply demonstrate.  This is something you appear to have made-up and fabricated out of thin air.  But I can't believe you would do that… so I'm at a loss to understand why you think that i've not been direct in answering this question of yours.

Quote

So, let's prove you can be DIRECT by DIRECTLY answering the following simple question.

I have proven I can be direct because I have answered your “simple question” directly, over 15 times in the past… and I listed each occurance for you.  So this issue you are bringing up is completely non-existent regarding my answers to you.

Quote

This is the ONLY issue I'm interested in hearing about in your next post, and the ONLY issue I will respond to until it's resolved.

I can see your strategy as plain as day.  You will do everything you can to not take ownership of your own mistakes by trying to shift the glare of the spotlight away from your mistakes… and direct it to non-existent, empty issues/claims against me.

In logic, such a tactic is a fallacy and its called a RED HERRING.

——————————–

Quote

The basis for this question is simple.  If there were others in scripture who were also called “elohim”, and they were neither God Almighty nor false gods…

Others in the other thread, and I myself in this thread, have kept telling you over and over that “elohim” had multiple meanings.

———————————-

Quote

… then being called “elohim” does not…………list en carefully here………..IN AND OF ITSELF prove that one was God Almighty.

And like the others and myself have kept telling you over and over… being called “elohim” does not…. and listen carefully here…. IN AND OF ITSELF prove that one was God Almighty OR a “leader/ruler/judge” OR angels OR divine ones OR a godlike one OR a goddess OR the works/special possessions of God.

What tells us is the context… not the definition.

———————————–

Quote

And if being called “elohim”…………IN AND OF ITSELF…………..does not PROVE that Jesus is God Almighty…

And like the others and myself have kept telling you over and over… being called “elohim” can…. and listen carefully here…. can mean that Jesus is God Almighty.  But like I said to you above… we need more than just a defintion.  We also need context and other pieces of evidence.

So.. If God calls Jesus God, then that is a context which is good evidence to show that Jesus is God.  If Jesus refers to Himself as God… then that is a context which is good evidence to show that Jesus is God.   If Jesus accepts attributes and those things which belong solely to God… then that is a context which is good evidence to show that Jesus is God.   If those around Jesus refer to Him and consider Him to be equal to God, and He doesn't correct them…  then that is  a context which is good evidence to show that Jesus is God.  etc. etc. etc.

As to the word “prove”… what do you mean by that?  I can just as easily show you that you can't ever prove that God exists.  So what you mean by the word “prove” is very important.  As is the word “elohim” and ultimately, all words.

——————————————

Quote

…then it's time to move on to the “YOUR God” part of Hebrews 1:9

I will, when we are done with Hebrews 1:8… and not before then.

——————————————

Quote

Because the bottom line of your argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that “Elohim called Jesus elohim”.

The bottom line of my argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that God called Jesus God.  

What you appear to forget is that the burden of proof is ON YOU to prove that “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8 does NOT MEAN God… because it is you who is in the distinct minority (and on on the fringe of scholarship) that is rejecting all the evidence and the near unanimous conclusion of well respected and learned scholars that God is calling Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8.

You have yet to offer any proof yet that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong.  If you have presented any evidence, then I haven't seen it.  So maybe it is I that needs glasses.  But if you have presented evidence that outweighs and fits the facts better than the majority conclusion that Hebrews 1:8 has God calling Jesus God, then please present it again so we can look at it and debate it.

——————————————-

Quote

And if being called “elohim” didn't NECESSARILY mean Jesus was “God Almighty”, then you'll have to do better in the future.

And by the same token, if being called “elohim” CAN MEAN that Jesus is God, then you'll have to do better in the future about presenting evidence to show that Jesus is not God in Hebrews 1:8… contrary to the near unaminous conclusion of the most respected Biblical scholars and Church Fathers/Leaders  throughout history.

I at least can marshall evidence to support my position.   And so even if you don't agree with my conclusion from that evidence I present… then the elephant in the room is that I have yet to see any evidence from you to support your position.   Which makes it convenient since I am then unable to challenge it or critique it.

But heck, maybe that is your strategy all along.  I just don't know.

——————————————

Quote

I do NOT believe that the word “elohim” MEANS “Supernatural Supreme Creator of All”.  Just as I do NOT believe that “God” is a NAME of our Creator.  But since almost every source I've looked at shows “God” as a NAME and shows “God” as a MEANING of elohim, I will concede the point…………for now – in an effort to move forward.

Mike, I find this statement of yours very troubling.  I mean, I can't but want to ask why are you in here to begin with?  Are you here to learn?  Are you here to find out if Jesus is God or not?  Are you even genuinely interested in the answer at all?  I have no doubt that you are a good person and that you must value intellectual honesty very highly.  But if you do prize intellectual honesty in your personal academic and philosophical life (and I have no reason to doubt you do)… then why… why… why… why Mike… why one earth would you persist in not believing that the word elohim can mean God when you yourself have just admitted that almost every source you've looked at shows God as a meaning of elohim?

If almost every source refutes your belief, then why are you willing to concede the point… not because you believe it is true… but only because you want to move forward?   Please help me to undersand how you reconcile this with intellectual honesty?   I mean, isn't part of intellectual honesty to go wherever the evidence points… even if we don't like where it is leading us?  I could be wrong, but to me that is what being intellectual honest is all about.  

And because I know you are intellectually honest, I can't understand this Milquetoast concession and answer on your part.

Where is your conviction?  Where is your desire for truth above all else?

No Mike… I'm not going to give up on you.  I know you are made of stronger stuff than this.  You are a strong person with passionate conviction and this milquetoast concession on your part about “elohim” will not fly with me.

And so, I will not move forward until we get this “elohim” understood.

You have just admitted that you do NOT believe that the word “elohim” MEANS “Supernatural Supreme Creator of All”… even though you've acknowledged  that almost every source you've looked at shows that God as a MEANING of elohim.

If you can't defend what you so passionately believe in, that how can we have a constructive discussion in the pursuit of truth?  If you are willing to believe what you want, even if it flies in the face of almost every source you've looked at, then what benefit can be derived from our discussion if we are here to learn the truth?

The question is if Jesus is God.  That is the question before us.  To me, that is one of the most important question a person can ask and
answer.  And for you to ignore the contrary facts before you, so that you can hold onto to your bias and preconceived notions at all costs… is very troubling indeed.

But I partly understand why you are doing this.  There is a name for what you are going through.  It's called the Planck Problem.  It's named after Planck who was a contemporary physicist of Einstein.  And he saw how that even with all of Einstein's vast intelligence, Einstein couldn't believe in the Big Bang, and so he introduced a “fudge factor” into his own mathematical equations so that his pet theory about a “steady state” universe would hold up.  It took a lot of doing and concerned friends… but Einstein was finaly persuaded that he was wrong… and that the Big Bang was correct.

What Planck got from that experience was that the more intelligent a person is, the MORE UNLIKELY… or the MORE DIFFICULT it is for them to make a major paradigm shift in their worldview.

That is what I think is happening with you.  You are obviously a very intelligent person… and like Einstein, when you are confronted with evidence from almost all the sources you have looked at that is contrary to what you believe in… it is very difficult for you make a major paradigm shift in your beliefs… just as it was for Einstein.

But just as Einstein's friends wouldn't give up on him, so I won't give up on you.  I'm not going to let you concede to something that you personally do not believe in, for convenience sake.  I'm going to make you stand and fight for what you believe in… until finally you will do what Einstien had to do.. and is concede that you were wrong after all.

Or if it will make it easier for you, think about it this way.  Don't concede your point about “elohim”. Instead, you want to demonstrate that you care about me and want ME to finally see the error of my ways.  Either way, how ever you want to view it… i'm not going to let you concede something that you don't personally believe in.

So I'm not going to move forward until we hash it out… once and for all… whether or not elohim can mean God… and whether or not you have been wrong for believing that the word “elohim” CAN'T MEAN “Supernatural Supreme Creator of All”.

Or that I have been wrong for believing that elohim can mean God.

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

After wading through about a million words explaining to me how DIRECT you are, your answer to my ONE SINGLE (NOT TWO) QUESTION is, in essence:

Yes Mike, there ARE those in scripture referred to as “elohim” who are neither God Almighty nor a “false god”.  

Thank you for your DIRECT answer.    Now you know why I ask and ask.  It's because I don't want a million words to answer a question that ONLY requires a “YES” or a “NO”.  And I asked Keith UNTIL he finally said, “Yes Mike, YES!”  You say you've been reading the other post?  Keith asked me if being called “elohim” absolutely meant that one WASN'T God Almighty.  I answered him with what I thought were direct enough answers………twice.  And then he hit me up a THIRD time, asking me to DIRECTLY answer his question.  Instead of being petty and joining the “Already Answered Keith's Question” club, I simply said “NO!  No, no, no!”

Now, was that so hard for me?  Of course not.  I only had to post one little word.  And I re-answered it for Dennison 3 times even though I already answered it for Keith at least twice.  So why do you make such a big deal of it?  You researched and researced and posted every time you THINK you DIRECTLY answered my question – although I never asked you that exact question before.  How much time did that take, Francis?  More time than just posting, “Yes” or “No”?    And what are we doing here anyway?  Are we trying to prove that Francis is cool and Mike's a jerk?  Are we having trouble with the facts of the debate and therefore feel it's appropriate to jump on the bandwagon and revert to personal belittlements and crass jokes?  90% of your time consuming post was a waste, because you could have just said, “Mike, I already answered you in different ways, but again: YES”

Anyway now I'M finally convinced that we are ALL on board that being called “elohim” is not any kind of proof that one is “God Almighty”.  And because we ALL agree on this, then we also agree that even when Jesus is called “elohim”, it is no kind of PROOF – IN AND OF ITSELF – that HE is God Almighty.  So let's move on.

I said:

Quote

Because the bottom line of your argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that “Elohim called Jesus elohim”.

You responded:

Quote (francis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:24)

The bottom line of my argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that God called Jesus God.

But that's not really ACCURATE, is it?  Hebrews 1:8 says that “theos” called Jesus “theos”.  And it's a quote from Psalm 45:6 in which “elohim” called someone “elohim”.  So forget about all your trinitarian translations that use “God” with a capped “G”.  It means NOTHING, because not ONE of those scholars offers any concrete information on why that particular scripture teaches that Jesus is God Almighty.  I already showed you the AMP, where they basically said, “Well, we were going to go with the small “g” in Psalm 45:6, since we know it's about the secular wedding of a king, but then when we realized it was later applied to Jesus, we figured we'd better cap the “G” in both scriptures, since we KNOW Jesus is God”.

Now Francis, if THAT'S the kind of scholarly information you're basing your defense on, then don't.  I could see it if the majority of scholars agreed and explained how Psalm 45:6 was actually about “God Almighty” in the first place.  But they don't.  I've posted a few of the many scholars who believe 45:6 to be about a human king who was called “elohim” but was NOT God Almighty.  And even if you researched and found loads and loads of scholars who said different, it doesn't really matter, because that just make the scripture ambiguous.  And ambiguous is not any kind of PROOF of anything.  And since some of these scholars who cap the “G” in Hebrews are the same ones who are saying Psalms is NOT about God Almighty, then what are we to make of their capital “G” in the first place?    How in the world can they SCRIPTURALLY say the Psalm is NOT referring to God Almighty, but then when it's applied to Jesus, they just out of the blue assume it MUST be referring to God Almighty?  That's called “wishful thinking”.  And if that's all the ammo you need to settle this thing in your own mind, then I feel sorry for you, because you'll never find the truth by saying, “Well, most Bibles say he's God with a capital “G” in 1:8, so I'll just go with that without even checking to see if they have any good reason whatsoever to change a Psalm that's NOT about God to a scripture that IS about God.”

But you do what you want.  As for me, unless you can show any SCRIPTURAL reason why the “non-God elohim” in 45:6 turned into a “God elohim” in 1:8, then I won't accept it.  How could I?  How could YOU?

At any rate, your claim that “God” with a capital “G” called Jesus “God” with a capital “G” is inaccurate since both the word “God” and the capital letters were added in many years after the scripture was originally written. And since your claim is inaccurate, then your conclusion that Jesus therefore must be God is unfounded.

And there's no sense getting into a debate about whether the original Psalm WAS about “God Almighty” or not, because I have some of YOUR scholars on MY side in the matter.   But I can think of at least one way to find out the truth.

So although you don't want to discuss 1:9, I see no choice in the matter.  Because if we are in doubt about 1:8, then 1:9 SHOULD clear it up for us.  

In 1:9, it is made very clear that this “theos” or “elohim” mentioned in 1:8 has a “theos” or “elohim” of his own.  So BEFORE we get into all the trinitarian gibberish, just answer ONE SINGLE QUESTION for me:

Francis, does God Almighty have a God?

SF has already put me through the wringer with “non-answers” to this question.  Please don't make me ask again and again and again, because I will.  It is a simple and DIRECT question that any 4 year old can easily answer with a DIRECT “YES” or “NO”.  And I will keep asking it UNTIL I get a DIRECT “YES” or “NO” from you.

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

Hi Francis, After wading through about a million words explaining to me how DIRECT you are, your answer to my ONE SINGLE (NOT TWO) QUESTION is, in essence: Yes Mike, there ARE those in scripture referred to as “elohim” who are neither God Almighty nor a “false god”.

It took a million words to demonstrate to you how direct I was because it was abundantly clear that my direct answers in the past weren't enough.  So I had no choice but to go step by step… and show every direct answer I had given you to show how direct my answers were all the time.  As I said before, you don't appear to be able to see a direct answer, at least not in the past as my previous post demonstrates.

So if it took a million words for you to finally see the light… then it was  worth it because you finally can see now.  At least for now.  We'll see how well you do in the future.

Quote

Thank you for your DIRECT answer.

Which one are you thanking me for?  I've given you over 15 in my previous posts.  

Quote

Now you know why I ask and ask.

Now you know why I had to use a million words… because you finally saw my direct answer.  I had to use a million words to show you that I given you a direct answer over 15 times in the past.  It was a chore, but it appears that it might have paid off finally.

Quote

It's because I don't want a million words to answer a question that ONLY requires a “YES” or a “NO”.

First of all, I gave you a direct answer over 15 times in the past.  That wasn't enough for you.  So a million words WERE NECESSARY in your case, because I kept giving you the same information and answer over and over.

Secondly, your first question I did answer with a direct yes… after I had to show you that I had answered that question directly over 15 times in the past.  And as for your second question, it was a bit confusing… and still is.  

Sometimes a question cannot logically be answered with a simple yes or no if you are truly interested in the truth.  Sometimes a simple yes or no… if given with no clarification/elaboration/context/etc will be misleading.  And we both don't want to be misleading.

Anyone who uses languages a lot, understand this.  There are questions which are considered to be loaded or complex and so must be reframed with the inherent flaws in the question pointed out.

That's exactly what I did with your second question.  It was confusing the way you asked it, and so I pointed out the inherent flaw in it.

The exact same thing happend to the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright in an interview she did on 60 minutes.  It happens often as it did with your question.

Here is a good example from logic… “Do you still beat your wife?”  See how a simple direct answer of a “Yes or no” could be misleading?  

That was what your second question was.  It was confusing the way you framed it.  I pointed it out to you and gave you a yes answer with a clarification.

Your first answer I answered directly over 15 times in the past.  And in my last post… I FIRST showed all the occurences where I did that, before answereing it the 17 time directly.

CONCLUSION:  To be intellectualy honest and precise, it required a million words for you to see the answer finally.

Quote

And I asked Keith UNTIL he finally said, “Yes Mike, YES!”

I think this is revisionist history.  He had ALREADY answered your question and kept telling you that he had done  so.  Finally in exasperation, he gave up.  He could see that you wouldn't or couldn't see that he had already answered your question.

As for me, I thought it was worth taking the time and write a lengthy response so that you could see what really transpired between you and I.  And I believe that it worked.  Because you finally see that I did give you a direct answer over 15 times in the past.  

Quote

You say you've been reading the other post?

Not always.  Sometimes too many responses and pages go by for me to go through each of them.  If a discussion grabs my attention, then I will read for a while.  My commitment is to our discussion so I put more time in our than in the other.

Quote

Keith asked me if being called “elohim” absolutely meant that one WASN'T God Almighty.  I answered him with what I thought were direct enough answers………twice.  And then he hit me up a THIRD time, asking me to DIRECTLY answer his question.  Instead of being petty and joining the “Already Answered Keith's Question” club, I simply said “NO!  No, no, no!”

Can't you see how you've trapped yourself?  Why do you think Keith and Dennison and myself would ask you such a question to begin with?  It was because WE ALREADY KNEW THAT “elohim” had multiple meanings besides just “leader” as you kept contending. And you knew it all along because we kept telling you.

This proves that when you asked the question to me “Are there elohim mentioned in the scriptures who are not God Almighty?, you were blind to the fact that I had already directly answered the question before.  And I listed the 15 times in which I had answered you.  

Quote

Now, was that so hard for me?  Of course not.  I only had to post one little word.

And like I kept explaining to you in my last post… I had already answered the first question directly over 15 times.  The second question was a bit confusing, and so I reframed it as it should have been… but even then,  I also answered it as you asked it… after first showing you the inherent flaws in it which made the question a bit confusing to me.  So I answered you second question in two different ways to point out how the question was a bit confusing.

So anyway… was it so hard for me to answer you directly 15 times in the past?  No.  But I was willing to do it repeatedly for your sake.  And then finally, after you asked me for an answer once again… I had to use a long post to explain and show you that I did indeed answer your question over 15 times.  And be the looks of things… it worked.  For now.  We'll see how you do in the future.

Quote

And I re-answered it for Dennison 3 times even though I already answered it for Keith at least twice.  So why do you make such a big deal of it?  You researched and researced and posted every time you THINK you DIRECTLY answered my question – although I never asked you that exact question before.

Is this an admission on your part that you can't think conceptually or understand the English language and structure beyond a 4 year old?  Of course you are more bright than a 4 year old.  Indeed… I believe you are a brilliant person… maye even a genius.

So this pretended ignorance of what was being asked and answered doesn't hold water with me.

If I say that I've saved you from a mugger who was creeping up on you when your back was turned… and I tell you that 15 times…. you don't need to then turn around and ask if I saved you from a mugger who was creeping up on you when your back was turned… and then make the claim that since  you never asked that question before… that then means and shows that you didn't know the answer to your question before you asked it.  

That's so completlely absurd. Your response here is completely baseless.

Quote

How much time did that take, Francis?

It took me a long post… and it worked because you finally see it.  So in the end, it was worth it.

Quote

More time than just posting, “Yes” or “No”?

As I have said repeatedly now… Your second question was a bit confusing, and I showed the inherent flaws in it.  The first question I had answered directly in the past.  So in my last post, I took the time to show you each occurance I had given you a direct answer… and then I wrapped it up with ANOTHER direct answer to your question… making it around 17 times now that I have directly answered your question.

Quote

And what are we doing here anyway?

I'm here to learn.  If I am wrong about Jesus being God, then I'm the first person who wants to know.  But after what I've seen so far from you, I don't believe that you will be able to demostrate that Jesus is not God.

But I don't want to underestimate you.  I want to give you the benefit of doubt because I know you are a brilliant person, and so I want assume that you do indeed have all this great evidence at your diposal that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is not God.

Quote

Are we trying to prove that Francis is cool and Mike's a jerk?

Asolutely not!!  If anyone is cool… it is you because I know I'm not cool. If you don't believe me, ask my wife.  She will concur that I'm not cool.  As for being a jerk?  I never once thought you were.  A bit confused?  Yes.  A jerk?  no.

As for me, I have no doubt that because I am severely flawed, I can at times be a jerk.  Again, my wife will probably concur on that score as well.

Quote

Are we having trouble with the facts of the debate and therefore feel it's appropriate to jump on the bandwagon and revert to personal belittlements and crass jokes?

If you feel that I have personally belittled you, then I apologize.  I don't think I have.  I don't think much of your arguments and reasoning so far… but I don't think I have personally belittled you… unless you consider that I think you are confused as belittling.  

But even in that case, I kept maintaining that it was your thinking and your statements that was confused.  And I then attempted to show how each time it was confused.   To me, a personal belittlement… an ad hominem… occurs when you attack a person personally instead of their arguments.  I have always attacked your arguments in detail… which is the reason for the long posts to begin with.

Anyway… I apologize for any personal belittling I have done that hurt you.  

Quote

90% of your time consuming post was a waste, because you could have just said, “Mike, I already answered you in different ways, but again: YES”

If that was true, I wouldn't have to answered you 15 times in the past.  It was obvious to me that direct answers were not  enough as my past direct answers demonstrated.

Quote

Anyway now I'M finally convinced that we are ALL on board that being called “elohim” is not any kind of proof that one is “God Almighty”.

Anymore than calling you a human being is any kind of proof that you are a human being.   Anymore than JHVH being called “elohim” is any kind of proof that he is God.  As I've been saying all along, it is the context that determines what the word “elohim” means in a scripture.  Context and other types of evidence.  We must bring all we can to bear in answering the question of whether God called Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8.

Not only that… but I don't even know if you and I are on the same page about the word “proof”.  As our past experience has shown… you and I don't always understand words in the same manner.  

Quote

And because we ALL agree on this, then we also agree that even when Jesus is called “elohim”, it is no kind of PROOF – IN AND OF ITSELF – that HE is God Almighty.  So let's move on.

Not so fast.  I'm not going to let you get away with such a cavalier and dismissive response.  CAN the fact that Jesus is called “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8 mean that Jesus is God?  Yes or no?

Quote

Mike said:   Because the bottom line of your argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that “Elohim called Jesus elohim”.   Francis responded with: The bottom line of my argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that God called Jesus God. Mike then says: But that's not really ACCURATE, is it?

I think it is… and so do the near unaminous opinion of all respected Biblical Scholars.  Even the NWT, which doesn't believe t
hat Jesus is God, translates “elohim” into God.

So the burden of proof is on you to demonsrate otherwise.

Quote

Hebrews 1:8 says that “theos” called Jesus “theos”.  And it's a quote from Psalm 45:6 in which “elohim” called someone “elohim”.  So forget about all your trinitarian translations that use “God” with a capped “G”.  It means NOTHING, because not ONE of those scholars offers any concrete information on why that particular scripture teaches that Jesus is God Almighty. I already showed you the AMP, where they basically said, “Well, we were going to go with the small “g” in Psalm 45:6, since we know it's about the secular wedding of a king, but then when we realized it was later applied to Jesus, we figured we'd better cap the “G” in both scriptures, since we KNOW Jesus is God”.

Can't you see that you've supplied the seeds of destruction within your own statement?  If Psalm 45:6 is merely saying that an “elohim” calls someone “elohim”, then how would you… or AMP know that it is referring ONLY to a secular wedding of a secular King?

But anyway… I am fully prepared to go down this road.  I've not been sitting here idle.  But as I explained before, I'm not going to move forward until I hear a direct answer from your own lips that you honestly believe with your heart and mind that “elohim” CAN MEAN God.

The meaning… the POSSIBLE meanings of the word “elohim” is very important… and even you recognize this fact when you wrote the following:

“I don't really care if every living soul on earth except me agrees that Jesus is God………I will STILL choose the words of the scriptures over every one of them.”

So it is evident that words are important to you. At least on that we can agree on.  So therefore, we can't move on until we can agree on what the word “elohim” CAN MEAN!!!  Especially since that word is central to Psam 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 and because words are important to you.

Quote

Now Francis, if THAT'S the kind of scholarly information you're basing your defense on, then don't.  I could see it if the majority of scholars agreed and explained how Psalm 45:6 was actually about “God Almighty” in the first place.  But they don't.  I've posted a few of the many scholars who believe 45:6 to be about a human king who was called “elohim” but was NOT God Almighty.  And even if you researched and found loads and loads of scholars who said different, it doesn't really matter, because that just make the scripture ambiguous.  And ambiguous is not any kind of PROOF of anything.  And since some of these scholars who cap the “G” in Hebrews are the same ones who are saying Psalms is NOT about God Almighty, then what are we to make of their capital “G” in the first place?    How in the world can they SCRIPTURALLY say the Psalm is NOT referring to God Almighty, but then when it's applied to Jesus, they just out of the blue assume it MUST be referring to God Almighty?  That's called “wishful thinking”.  And if that's all the ammo you need to settle this thing in your own mind, then I feel sorry for you, because you'll never find the truth by saying, “Well, most Bibles say he's God with a capital “G” in 1:8, so I'll just go with that without even checking to see if they have any good reason whatsoever to change a Psalm that's NOT about God to a scripture that IS about God.” But you do what you want.  As for me, unless you can show any SCRIPTURAL reason why the “non-God elohim” in 45:6 turned into a “God elohim” in 1:8, then I won't accept it.  How could I?  How could YOU? At any rate, your claim that “God” with a capital “G” called Jesus “God” with a capital “G” is inaccurate since both the word “God” and the capital letters were added in many years after the scripture was originally written.  And since your claim is inaccurate, then your conclusion that Jesus therefore must be God is unfounded. And there's no sense getting into a debate about whether the original Psalm WAS about “God Almighty” or not, because I have some of YOUR scholars on MY side in the matter.   But I can think of at least one way to find out the truth. So although you don't want to discuss 1:9, I see no choice in the matter.  Because if we are in doubt about 1:8, then 1:9 SHOULD clear it up for us.   In 1:9, it is made very clear that this “theos” or “elohim” mentioned in 1:8 has a “theos” or “elohim” of his own.  So BEFORE we get into all the trinitarian gibberish, just answer ONE SINGLE QUESTION for me: Francis, does God Almighty have a God? SF has already put me through the wringer with “non-answers” to this question.  Please don't make me ask again and again and again, because I will.  It is a simple and DIRECT question that any 4 year old can easily answer with a DIRECT “YES” or “NO”.  And I will keep asking it UNTIL I get a DIRECT “YES” or “NO” from you.

First of all, I don't believe the situation is as ambigious as you want to make it out.

Secondly, I'm not using Psalm 45:6 as prooftexting.  I'm using the entire Psalm 45 as PART of my proof in support of my contention that Hebrews 1:8 is talking about God.  As anyone who understands what prooftexting is… using a verse as a prooftexts can completely ignore other passages which if added to the mix, might well lead to an entirely different conclusion.  

Therefore, anyone who relies strongly only on a list of prooftexts in order to make an argument, probably has a very weak case for his argument…  and such people are even looked upon in a negative manner among Biblical Scholars.  And so I do not rely solely on prooftexts for my position, but more on traditional hermeneutics which Wikipedia defines as:

“the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law. Contemporary, or modern, hermeneutics encompasses not only issues involving the written text, but everything in the interpretative process. This includes verbal and nonverbal forms of communication as well as prior aspects that affect communication, such as presuppositions, preunderstandings, the meaning and philosophy of language, and semiotics.”

Thirdly… we can't move on until we agree what the word “elohim” CAN MEAN!!!  Especially since that word is central to Psam 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 and since words are so important to you.

Quote

Francis, does God Almighty have a God?

This is a perfect example of a loaded question and shows how a simple yes or no can be misleading and not always appropriate.

Therefore… the correct answer is that within a Trinity where there is only ONE GOD… God can call Jesus God as He does in Hebrews 1:8 and Jesus can call God, God as He does in Revelations 3:12.  Calling each other God does not mean there are multiple Gods.  There is only One God.   And within the Trinity there is God the Father… God the Son… and God the Holy Spirit.  All one God… not 3.

I look forward to your response.

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

You want to know if I will acknowledge that “elohim” can MEAN “God”.  I have stated for the record that I do NOT believe “God” to be a NAME of our Creator, but a TITLE.  And I do not believe the English word “God”, as we understand it, to be a bonafide DEFINITION of the word “elohim”.

But I have also clearly said that I cannot find any scholarly SUPPORT of this, and so, in an effort to move forward with this debate, I have CONCEDED my point and have agreed – solely for the purpose of this debate – to accept “God” as ONE of the MEANINGS of “elohim”.  

Is that clear enough to move on?

Quote (francis @ Jan. 26 2011,03:13)

Therefore, anyone who relies strongly only on a list of prooftexts in order to make an argument, probably has a very weak case for his argument…  and such people are even looked upon in a negative manner among Biblical Scholars.

Very good.  I agree.  Therefore, it is not a good idea to look ONLY at Hebrews 1:8 as a “prooftext” when 1:9, as well as the entire chapter, puts 1:8 in more perspective.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 26 2011,03:13)

Not so fast.  I'm not going to let you get away with such a cavalier and dismissive response.  CAN the fact that Jesus is called “elohim” in Hebrews 1:8 mean that Jesus is God?  Yes or no?

YES.  Hebrews 1:8, taken completely out of context and all by itself COULD mean that Jesus is God.  But then again, Exodus 7:1, taken by itself could mean that Moses is God.  So let's not take them all by themselves, okay?  

Quote

Mike said:   Because the bottom line of your argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that “Elohim called Jesus elohim”.   Francis responded with: The bottom line of my argument involving Hebrews 1:8 is that God called Jesus God. Mike then says: But that's not really ACCURATE, is it?  Hebrews 1:8 says that “theos” called Jesus “theos”.  And it's a quote from Psalm 45:6 in which “elohim” called someone “elohim”. Then Francis fell back on: I think it is… and so do the near unaminous opinion of all respected Biblical Scholars.  Even the NWT, which doesn't believe that Jesus is God, translates “elohim” into God.

First of all Francis, let's leave the NWT out of this.  Because their translation, as has been confimed as possible by the 50+ trinitarian scholars of the CEV and the NEB translation, says “God is your throne forever”.  And I could have easily just dismissed this scripture altogether by saying that the translation of, “Your throne, O God, is forever” is ambiguous in the first place, and therefore PROOF of nothing.  But I didn't take the easy way out because I wanted to hear your side of it with the latter translation and find out how in the world even THAT translation could be construed as “Jesus is God”.

So since I'm not using the NWT's FULL translation, it is a bit of a slant for you to use their capitalization of “theos” in this scripture as some kind of support to your understanding of it.  So please stop unless you want to use their WHOLE translation, which is an entirely PLAUSIBLE and POSSIBLE translation of the Hebrew words originally written down.

Secondly, you left one word out of your sentence above.  What you more ACCURATELY could have said is, “I think it is… and so do the near unaminous opinion of all respected TRINITARIAN Biblical Scholars.”  Francis, do you think you could find a NON-TRINITARIAN scholar who supports your understanding?  Of course not.  So let's not make this debate about “majority rule”, okay?  Let's keep it about what we both SCRIPTURALLY and LOGICALLY know and can prove, and not about how many trinitarians you can find to agree to anything they think might have a chance of saying “Jesus is God”, okay?

So here's what we both SCRIPTURALLY know about Hebrews 1:8……..

Jesus MIGHT, depending on the translation, be referred to as “elohim” or “theos”, which COULD mean “God” – but DOESN'T HAVE TO mean “God”.  And that's really all we know just from that ONE scripture.  

Yet you say the burden is on ME to prove “elohim” DOESN'T mean “God” in this scripture?  That seems a little backwards to me in light of Micah 5:4.  As you no doubt recall, that's where we started.  And that scripture says Jesus will rule in the strength and name of his God.  And that scripture gives no time limits to Jesus ruling in the strength and name of his God.  It is YOU who said that I must understand Micah 5:4 in light of other scriptures that “clearly” teach us that Jesus is God, and then it would become more clear to me that Micah 5:4 only applied to the time when Jesus was on earth.  And I'm still waiting for that scripture that CLEARLY teaches me that Jesus is God.  But now you want to turn the tables?  You want to quote a scripture that, based on all the information we actually KNOW, COULD BE calling Jesus “God”, but most definitely DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.  And then claim the burden is now on ME to prove it ISN'T calling Jesus “God Almighty”?    Yep, backwards.  But okay.  

I offer up 1:9, which is actually the continuation of the statement that began in 1:8, so they naturally SHOULD be linked together for understanding anyway.  1:9 CLEARLY, and without any guess work on our parts, states that the “elohim” or “theos” in 1:8 has an “elohim” or “theos” of his own.  And since YOU think Jesus IS “God Almighty”, I asked this question of you:

Francis, does God Almighty have a God?

You said:

Quote (francis @ Jan. 26 2011,03:13)

This is a perfect example of a loaded question and shows how a simple yes or no can be misleading and not always appropriate.

And THAT is a perfect example of why I ask questions more than one time.  I think God Almighty consists of YHVH, the Father.  And NO, God Almighty does NOT have a God.

You think God Almighty consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but your answer should still be NO, God Almighty does NOT have a God.  But let's go ahead and address your “DIRECT” answer to my simple YES or NO question anyway, because it begins to explain why I titled this thread the way I did:

Ah, but we don't KNOW FOR A FACT that God called Jesus “God”, do we?  What we KNOW is that many trinitarian scholars translate the Greek text into English in such a way as to make it SEEM like God is calling Jesus “God”, right?  But we don't HONESTLY know from the Greek words (or the Hebrew words of 45:6) that this is ACCURATE, do we?  So instead of being a “proof text” of anything, it is more of a “wishful thinking text” on the trinitarians part, eh?  

So Francis, if you have PROOF of some kind that the Greek text of 1:8 CANNOT POSSIBLY be translated any other way than the way YOU prefer it, let me have it.  But if there is even a SHRED of possibility that it COULD BE translated another way that DOESN'T end up with God calling Jesus “God”, then it is not really proof of anything at all, let alone enough “proof” to set time limits in Micah 5:4.

Francis, this is where HONESTY comes into play.  You MUST be able to HONESTLY admit that God calling Jesus “God” is just ONE of the many different possibilities of 1:8.  I HONESTLY admit that it COULD BE how you understand it……………..IF we ONLY consider 1:8 by itself.  Are YOU willing to admit that it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE the way YOU understand it?

Quote (francis @ Jan. 26 2011,03:13)

Therefore… the correct answer is that within a Trinity where there is only ONE GOD… God can call Jesus God as He does in Hebrews 1:8

Quote (francis @ Jan. 26 2011,03:13)

and Jesus can call God, God as He does in Revelations 3:12.

Ahhhh………..but there is a BIG difference between calling someone “theos” and calling someone “MY theos”.  Because Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah up as a “puppet king” of Jerusalem after he conquered Judah.  So I could see Neb being called “MY king” by Zed.  And I can see Zed being called by his title of “king” by Neb.  But I can't see Neb calling the “puppet king” that HE HIMSELF installed “MY king”, can you?

So your assertion that God didn't have to say “MY” in order to imply that Jesus was “HIS God” is weak and unfounded.

Quote (francis @ Jan. 26 2011,03:13)

There is only One God.   And within the Trinity there is God the Father… God the Son… and God the Holy Spirit.  All one God… not 3.

Francis, do you agree that “God” is ONE BEING?  I know you think there are three persons within that ONE BEING (although we are created in His image, and none of us are three persons within one being ), but it is just ONE BEING, right?  And if so, when Jesus says “MY Father”, then he could be referring to one of the persons within that one being, right?  But how does it work when Jesus says “MY GOD”?  Because God is only ONE BEING, so for Jesus to call Him “MY GOD”, he would have to be someone OUTSIDE of that one being, or he's basically saying “MY SELF”.  Do you see what I'm saying?

Anyway, here's where we're at so far:

1.  If you are to CONTINUE to be honest, you must honestly admit that, as much as you WANT IT TO, 1:8 is not CONFIRMED by any scholar to have God calling Jesus “God”.  Because even the trinitarian scholars admit the most popular translation is a POSSIBILITY, at best.  And many of those same scholars do NOT agree with you that the “elohim” in 45:6 refers to God Almighty, nor do you have any PROOF that it does, so we are left with a scripture that you WANT DESPERATELY to say “Jesus is God”, but the TRUTH of the matter is that it just cannot be proven that it does.

2.  We have many occasions of Jesus CLEARLY and without a doubt calling the Father “MY God” (actually, in the Greek, it is “the God OF ME), and no occasions whatsoever where God calls Jesus “MY God” or “the God OF ME”.  And while 1:9 doesn't have the words “God of me”, it CLEARLY and without a doubt teaches that the theos in 1:8 has a theos who is HIS theos.

3.  And we have the COMMON SENSE that tells us if “Person A” is the ruler OF “Person B”, then “Person B” cannot possibly be the ruler of “Person A”.  

Francis, you cannot honestly, knowing what we both know, still claim 1:8 as a PROOF text, and you know it.  At the very best, it is a “MAYBE TEXT”, and that's not good enough to change anyone's understanding of Micah 5:4.

So, what else ya got?

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

You want to know if I will acknowledge that “elohim” can MEAN “God”.  I have stated for the record that I do NOT  believe “God” to be a NAME of our Creator, but a TITLE.  And I do not believe the English word “God”, as we understand  it, to be a bonafide DEFINITION of the word “elohim”. But I have also clearly said that I cannot find any scholarly SUPPORT of this, and so, in an effort to move forward  with this debate, I have CONCEDED my point and have agreed – solely for the purpose of this debate – to accept “God” as  ONE of the MEANINGS of “elohim”.

Then why on earth are we debating?  If you cannot find any scholarly support for your position, and yet you STILL WON'T acknowledge that elohim can mean God, then it doesn't matter what I or anyone says to you… because you are going to believe what you want no matter what.

If you're going to have that kind of attitude… then you CANNOT complain if I were to adopt YOUR ATTITUDE… and say simply that even though I cannot find any scholarly support that Jesus is God… I am still going to believe that Jesus is God.

There you go.  Now what?  Why are we even going to debate if evidence and facts and reason and logic is not going to impress you or make any impact upon you at all?

So… if I adopt your attitude, then there is nothing you can complain about (because it is your attitude I'm adopting)… and so there is nothing to discuss sense we are going to believe what we want to believe even if we can't find any scholarly support or evidence for our position.

So I guess there is no where to go from here.  The only way we can move forward and make sense of what we are debating and discussing is if we are willing to let the evidence lead us… instead of us leading or rejecting the evidence.

So the ball is in your court now.  What do you want to do?

You asked:

“So, what else ya got?”

Apparantly it doesn't matter what I've got because you don't care about evidence or even scholarly research/support/opinions/conclusions because you're going to just believe whatever you want no matter what.

To be honest, to me, your attitude is not an example of being intellectually honest… or even a good example of using the brain that God gave you.  I find what you say to be incredibly bizarre and bewildering.  I thought we lived in the 21st Century… not the dark ages.

So no… we can't go any further until we deal with the issue of what elohim means. I'm not going to debate (because there is no debate in such a situation) with someone who doesn't care what the evidence is… and who is arguing a side that he doesn't personally believe in to begin with.  This is not a college debate we are doing for our teacher or for a grade.  This is about real life.  About real beliefs.  About being intellectually honest.  About being open to the truth.

For you to continue further even though you don't even believe what you are arguing, is a sham and is an insult to God and an affront to everything I hold dear about being intellectually honest and being courageous enough to let the evidence lead you to where it goes.

So until you are willing to man up and deal with elohim's meanings and definitions… I'm not moving forward.

So it's up to you now as what happens with this debate.

C'mon Mike.  Here you were in here chastising me and  trinitarians for believing in something you say there is no proof for… for believing that Jesus is God when you say there is no evidence that Jesus is God… and yet you are doing the very thing that you criticize the trinitarians and I for doing!!!!

If that is not being hypocritical… then I don't know what is.

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Francis said:

Quote

You asked: “So, what else ya got?” Apparantly it doesn't matter what I've got because you don't care about evidence or even scholarly research/support/opinions/conclusions because you're going to just believe whatever you want no matter what.

Whoa!  Are you angry, Francis?    Not that I'm happy to hear it, but let's just say I expected it sooner or later.  It happens to every trinitarian I debate at the exact moment they realize their “irrefutable proof text” is really just a “wishful thinking” text.  And THAT is what makes them angry, but for some reason they want to shoot the messenger.  

Out of that whole post, you have decided to dwell upon our “meaning of elohim” discrepancy?  I don't know what else to tell you, Francis.  I clearly said that I accept “God” as a REAL, BONAFIDE MEANING or DEFINITION of the word “elohim” for this debate.  I don't really see the difference anyway.  If I agree that the word is sometimes used to REFER TO “God”, then how is that so different from me saying that the word sometimes MEANS “God”?  Either wording still supports the same bottom line.  And the bottom line we BOTH agreed to is:  While the word CAN mean “God”, it doesn't always, and therefore simply being called “elohim” is not any proof of Godship.  And that fact remains the same whether I say a particular use of the word “REFERS TO GOD”, or I say it “MEANS GOD”.  So I'm really stumped by your post.  

Quote (francis @ Jan. 26 2011,16:04)

So no… we can't go any further until we deal with the issue of what elohim means.

According to virtually every source, “elohim” MEANS “judge, ruler, mighty one, angel, vice-regent of YHVH, a lower case god, or THE upper case God”.  And I have happily accepted ALL of these definitions for this debate.  But since the word MEANS so many different things, you still have no choice but to accept the fact that being called “elohim”, IN AND OF ITSELF, does not make one be “God Almighty” Himself.

So I don't know why we're still discussing this issue at all.  Have I made an argument involving my disbelief that the word can actually MEAN “God” since I agreed to concede my point and accept the DEFINITION of “God”?  

And that leaves us right back where I left off last night.

Hebrews 1:8 is a scripture that MAY OR MAY NOT even call Jesus “elohim” in the first place.  In the second place, we BOTH HAPPILY ACKNOWLEDGE that being called “elohim” isn't proof of being God Almighty.  So even if the Hebrew and Greek DOES have God calling Jesus “elohim”, (and that is a big “IF”), it is still not any proof that Jesus is being called “God Almighty”, right?

And when we add in the fact that the rest of the statement refers to the elohim OF this first elohim, chances are pretty bleak that this particular scripture is calling Jesus “God Almighty”.  

But the bottom line is that chances are absolutely non-existent that this scripture is SOLID PROOF of Jesus being called “God Almighty”, so you should let this one go and hit me with your next “PROOF text”.  Maybe the next one will actually BE proof.  

Francis, don't get angry – I'm only pointing out facts to you.  And I know that you WANT 1:8 to say Jesus is God, but the reality of it is that it simply just doesn't do that.  And if you are honest with yourself, you will simply acknowledge this FACT and move on to something else.  Because I didn't get the impression that you were arguing the case that Jesus MIGHT BE “God Almighty”.  I got the impression that you KNEW Jesus ABSOLUTELY IS “God Almighty” and you could prove that to me.  Was I wrong?

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

Whoa!  Are you angry, Francis?

Angry? Whaaaatttt?  Where do you get that from?  Even when you and Ed J made remarks that appeared to challenge my honesty, I was never  angry with either one of you.  Dissappointed?  Absolutely!!  Angry?  Never.

Quote

Not that I'm happy to hear it, but let's just say I expected it sooner or later.

If you expected me to get angry, then you obviously don't know me at all.  Which says a lot about how you think.  To make assumptions about someone you don't know anything about, is horrendous.

Quote

It happens to every trinitarian I debate at the exact moment they realize their “irrefutable proof text” is really just a “wishful thinking” text.   And THAT is what makes them angry, but for some reason they want to shoot the messenger.

Well Mike, I think you live in “la la” land.  Or maybe it's Twilight Zone.  Talk about “wishful thinking”… look who's talking.

And who said anything about “irrefuable proof text” anyway?  Not I.  Which brings up the other issue which you so conveniently glossed over and  ignored.  What on earth do you mean by “irrefutable proof” to begin with?  Or even…  what does “prove/proof” mean to you?   You sure love to  swing those kinds of words and phrases around, but I have a very distinct impression that you are not using the word as i am… and that you are  certainly not using and applying it fairly to yourself and your beliefs.

I have never said I can absolutely… and irrefutably prove ANYTHING outside of math.  And neither can you.  And neither can anyone else in  here.  Absolute proof is beyond anyone's capabilities.  I've said this a few times now, but it seems to bounce off you.

For example, there is no way you can absolutely and irrefutably prove that God exists.  And yet you are willing to die for God without any such  absolute and irrefutable proof.  What does that say about the nature of the reality of the knowledge that we are living with everyday?

And there is no way you can absolutely and irrefutably prove that you are a real person and not a dream or some sophisticated 3D hologram of  some alien somewhere in the universe.  And yet you believe otherwise and you live your life as if you aren't.

You can't absolutely and irrefutably prove that tomorrow will exist, and yet you live as if it will as evidenced by the fact that you keep your job and  your money.

So if you think I am going to be able to absolutely and irrefutably prove anything in here, then you are completely disconnected from and  unobservant of what I've been saying in here.  And because I know it is fact that it is logically impossible for you to absolutely and irrefutably  prove anything that you believe in… I know that I don't need to absolutely and irrefutably prove my viewpoint either.

What I can do… and what I plan to do… is make the argument that my case… my viewpoint… my interpretation of scriptures (from a Trinitarian  position) is far superior to your anti-Trinitarian position and interpretation of the scriptures in terms of available evidence.

When we are ready to go… I will be prepared to lay out all the evidences/proofs/research/facts, etc for my side for Hebrews 1:8 and Psalms  45:6.    And then compare it to all the evidences (the ones you present) for your side.   And one thing I can see already is that you have scant  evidence to support your position at all.

But of course volume of evidence is not the final measure of how strong/weak the evidence is.  So you will have a chance to attempt to rebut  each piece of evidence I present.. and I will have the same opportunity to rebut yours.

Now… not only are we miles apart from reaching an agreement about the word “elohim”… but I'm not even sure we are on the same page about  what “prove” means in relation to each of us trying to “prove” our respective case.

So I want to take this opportunity to explain what I mean when I say that it is my goal to “prove” that my Trinitarian position is the correct one.

Since no one can absolutely and irrefutably prove anything outside of math, then it is clear that I am not going to attempt to absolutely and irrefutably prove that the Trinitarian position is correct.  What I'm going to do is attempt to prove that my position is a far stronger and a far more logical and rational position than your position,  when all the evidence that is avaialbe is taken into fair and impartial consideration.

What I'm going to do is what all scholars and all scientists do when examing the evidence and making conclusions based on the evidence.   And since no one can absolutely and irrefutably prove anything (outside of math),  the next best thing that rational people do is look for the conclusion that can be best inferred and deduced from the available evidence…  which best explains all the evidence and has the most explanatory power in scope for the evidence.

As an example… in the debate between the atheists and the theists (most notably the Christians)… both sides will offer evidence for their sides.  This is common because if one of the sides does not have any evidence to offer, than no debate can exist.  But as with all debates… including the debate between the Trinitarians and the non-Trinitarians… each side has evidence to bring to the debate/table.

But that doesn't mean that both sides have positions that are equal in strength or in explanotory power for all the evidence available. One side is going to have more evidence or better evidence and better conclusions that can inferred/deduced from that evidence…. than the other side.

So whereas I have no doubt that you have evidence for your side, I believe my evidence for my side is better and that my conclusion from that evidence has more explantory power than your conclusion from the evidence.

Therefore, I have no reason to be angry or shoot the messenger… whoever the messenger might be.

Quote

Out of that whole post, you have decided to dwell upon our “meaning of elohim” discrepancy?

???   It has nothing to do with a “discrepancy”, but it goes to the very heart of whether or not you are going to be intellectually honest and use your God given brain to defend what you PERSONALLY BELIEVE in.  That is the issue before us at this time in our debate.  

The entire debate centers on the word elohim.  That's a fact.  And you have admitted that words are very important to you… so important that even if you were the last person on earth to believe that elohim can only mean “leader/ruler”… you're not going to change your mind.  Even in the face of the fact that you can't find any scholarly support for your belief… you're STILL not going to change your mind.

That is the elephant in the room.  The rest of the post is completely irrelevant since it shows to the whol
e world that facts and evidence and scholarly work makes ABSOLUTELY NO IMPRESSION on you as a thinker.

I thought I was debating a thinker who was intellectually honest enough to let the evidence lead them instead of letting their emotions and bias do the thinking for them… and who is so willing to completely disregard the contrary evidence before them.

Quote

I don't know what else to tell you, Francis.  I clearly said that I accept “God” as a REAL, BONAFIDE MEANING or DEFINITION of the word “elohim” for this debate.  I don't really see the difference anyway.  If I agree that the word is sometimes used to REFER TO “God”, then how is that so different from me saying that the word sometimes MEANS “God”?  Either wording still supports the same bottom line.  And the bottom line we BOTH agreed to is:  While the word CAN mean “God”, it doesn't always, and therefore simply being called “elohim” is not any proof of Godship.  And that fact remains the same whether I say a particular use of the word “REFERS TO GOD”, or I say it “MEANS GOD”.  So I'm really stumped by your post.

I know what you said… and I specifically and carefully addressed the EXACT points you are bringing up once again.  So for you to say that you are really stumped by what I wrote,  clearly indicates that you appear to be disingenious…  and that you are pretending ignorance for no other reason than because you don't want to deal with the fact that you've been exposed as a person who has no regard for facts or evidence that is contrary to your personal bias and personal beliefs.

The above statement of yours is almost like an ostrich sticking their head in the ground hoping that the issue will go way.  Well, it won't go away.

When 2 posts ago you wrote that for this debate you are willing to concede the definition of the word “elohim” to keep things moving… that is EXACTLY THE SAME MEANING as your above comment when you said that you would  “accept “God” as a REAL, BONAFIDE MEANING or DEFINITION of the word “elohim” for this debate.”

So all you did was REPEAT YOURSELF!!  That's all you did.  So what am I supposed to do now?  Since all you did was repeat yourself, am I to repeat myself as well and give you the SAME  EXACT answer as I did the first time around?  C'mon Mike.

As I said before, I don't care that you are willing to concede the definition solely for the purpose of this debate… in an effort to move forward with this debate… because you said:

I have stated for the record that I do NOT believe “God” to be a NAME of our Creator, but a TITLE.  And I do not believe the English word “God”, as we understand it, to be a bonafide DEFINITION of the word “elohim”.

Why is this important me?  It is a perfect microcosm… a coming attraction of things to come in the larger debate around it.  If you are not willing to concede that elohim can mean God in the scriptures… even in the face of the fact that you can't find any scholarly support for your position… then what does that tell us will happen with the rest of the debate about Trinitarism?  It tells us that you will do exactly the same thing.

I can bring all kinds of evidences and proof to demonstrate that the Trinity is true… that Hebrews 1:8 has God calling Jesus God… and just as you do with “elohim”, you are not going to change your mind or care what the evidence says.

And therefore, our debate is really nothing but a sham… a fake.  And I'm not going to be involved in a fake debate with someone who doesn't have the courage to follow the evidence wherever it leads… even if it leads to a paradigm shift in your worldview.

Now, in a previous post, I told you why I think this might be happening… why you might be doing this.   I think it's like the Planck Problem with you.

Quote

And I have happily accepted ALL of these definitions for this debate.

I'm not interested in what you are conceding if it's solely for the purpose of this debate only…  if you STILL personally do not believe God is an accepted definition for the word “elohim”.

Because again… what good does that do if that is just a microcosm of the larger issue in which you are not willing to accept contrary evidence and change your mind if you have to,  when confronted with it?   If you don't have the courage to change your mind and admit that you were mistaken, then this debate becomes a sham and a fake because it is ultimately meaningless.

Quote

So I don't know why we're still discussing this issue at all.  Have I made an argument involving my disbelief that the word can actually MEAN “God” since I agreed to concede my point and accept the DEFINITION of “God”?

The fact that you won't change your mind in the face of contrary evidence… evidence so overwhelming that even you admitted that you could find no scholarly support for your position… exposes you as a person who doesn't care what evidence the other side can bring to the table.   And thus… that kind of attitude on your part renders this debate a sham.  You're not being genuine in this debate.  You're not interested in the truth and you certainly are not interested in what the other side can bring to the table in way of evidence.

I don't want any part of a sham.

Quote

And that leaves us right back where I left off last night.

I haven't changed my position.  I'm not interested in particpating in a sham.  I'm not interested in having a debate with someone who cares nothing about the truth or evidence or facts.

Quote

Hebrews 1:8 is a scripture that MAY OR MAY NOT even call Jesus “elohim” in the first place.

It doesn't matter because you don't care what the evidence may say about the meaning of the word “elohim” to begin with.

Quote

In the second place, we BOTH HAPPILY ACKNOWLEDGE that being called “elohim” isn't proof of being God Almighty.

Again… It doesn't matter because you don't care what the evidence may say about the meaning of the word “elohim” to begin with.

Quote

So even if the Hebrew and Greek DOES have God calling Jesus “elohim”, (and that is a big “IF”), it is still not any proof that Jesus is being called “God Almighty”, right?

Again… It doesn't matter because you don't care what the evidence may say about the meaning of the word “elohim” t
o begin with.

Quote

And when we add in the fact that the rest of the statement refers to the elohim OF this first elohim, chances are pretty bleak that this particular scripture is calling Jesus “God Almighty”.

This has already been dealt with.  And instead of dealing with the arguments I presented, you called it gibberish.  If that is the extent of your reasoning, then things are pretty bleak for you… not for me.

But anyway… It doesn't matter because you don't care what the evidence may say about the meaning of the word “elohim” to begin with.

Quote

But the bottom line is that chances are absolutely non-existent that this scripture is SOLID PROOF of Jesus being called “God Almighty”, so you should let this one go and hit me with your next “PROOF text”.  Maybe the next one will actually BE proof. First of all, I dealt with the issue of “proof” and “prove” above.   But now I'm interested in knowing what YOU mean by “solid proof”? Not only that… but the fact that you are wanting solid proof or even proof from me appears to be an incredible example of hypocracy coming from a person who doesn't need solid proof or proof at all to keep believing what they want.   You're talking from both sides of your mouth Mike.  You want to apply a standard to me that you yourself can't even attain or reach in your own personal beliefs.  To me that shows just how disingenious you are and how you've turned this debate into a sham.   But anyway… It doesn't matter because you don't care what the evidence may say about the meaning of the word “elohim” to begin with. Francis, don't get angry – I'm only pointing out facts to you.

The facts are as follows:

1)… I'm not angry.

2)… You have no basis to think I am angry.

3)… You have no basis to expect that sooner or later I would become angry.

4)… As evidenced by your refusal to admit that “elohim” can mean God, this shows that you are not interested in facts.

5)… You don't know anything about me.

6)… You expect of me what you don't expect of youself in the way of proofs, etc.

7)… You will pretend ignorance about something I've said even though I was very plain and direct in what I said.

8)… The fact that you would say: ” … go and hit me with your next “PROOF text”” shows that you didn't even read or comprehend what I previously wrote to you about proof texting.

Quote

And I know that you WANT 1:8 to say Jesus is God…

And I know that you DON'T WANT 1:8 to say Jesus is God.

Quote

…but the reality of it is that it simply just doesn't do that.

You're begging the question.  The debate is whether or not it does.

Quote

And if you are honest with yourself…

Look who's talking.  This is coming from a person that can't or won't be honest and admit that he could be wrong about “elohim” even though there is absolutely no evidence to support your wishful thinking that “elohim” CAN NOT MEAN God.

Quote

…you will simply acknowledge this FACT and move on to something else.

We can move on when you are honest enough to acknowledge the FACT that you are wrong about “elohim”.  Or at least defend your belief that God is not a possible meaning for elohim.

Quote

Because I didn't get the impression that you were arguing the case that Jesus MIGHT BE “God Almighty”.

In the finite human realm of knowledge, there is no way to prove absolutes,  apart from math.  You can't even absolutely prove that you are real person and not a dream.

Quote

I got the impression that you KNEW Jesus ABSOLUTELY IS “God Almighty” and you could prove that to me.  Was I wrong?

All the evidence points to the conclusion that Jesus is God.  But I can't prove it anymore than you can prove that you are a real person, and not a dream.   But as a rational and logical person, I can see that the conclusion… the deducdtion that Jesus is God…  is by far… the best inference from all the available evidence before us.  After that… the Holy Spirit compliments the head knowledge with spiritual assurance.

Just as you have to live by faith that you are a real person (because you can't absolutely prove you are real)… and just as you have to live by faith that tomorrow exists (because you can't absolutely prove that it will come)… and just as you have to live by faith that God exists (because you can't absolutely prove that He does exists)… and because nothing can be absolutely proven outside of math… I am forced… as we all are… to live by faith also.  

And although I can't absolutely prove that Jesus is God… I can take comfort in the fact that my faith is not blind. I can take comfort in the fact that it takes more faith to be an athiest than a theist.    I can take comfort in the fact that it takes more faith to disbelieve that Jesus is God, than to believe that Jesus is God.   Because I know/believe that my case is far stronger than your case.   And so as a rational person, I'm putting my faith in the stronger case.  Which is that Jesus is God.

Anyway… it will be a sham to be move forward without finally resolving the “elohim” issue since your attitude is a perfect microcosm… a coming attraction of things to come in this debate,  in the way of how we view the primacy of evidence in our thought life.    If you have so little disregard for evidence and letting it lead you… then that means I can expect that same kind of attitude in the rest of the debate… which makes the debate a sham… because this is not a college course or a college debate we are doing for a grade or for a class.  This real life with real consequences which reveals the real us.

CONCLUSION:

You said: I have stated for the record that I do NOT believe “God” to be a NAME of our Creator, but a TITLE.  And I do not believe the English word “God”, as we understand it, to be a bonafide DEFINITION of the word “elohim”.

It is silly… a sham… to move forward when you are debating a position that you don't personally believe in.  If you are not interested in evidence about “eloh
im”… then you are not going to be interested in evidence about anything else you don't believe in.  And so the whole thing is a waste of time.  Isn't that true?

God Bless
Respectfully
Francis

ps… you said that you DO want truth on the other thread.  Where is this desire for truth when it comes to “elohim”?  Or is it maybe YOUR TRUTH that you are most interested… and not THE TRUTH?

To me, this is the sticking point between us at this juncture of our debate.  You say one thing, but your actions and deeds say something entirely different to me.  If you are sincerely interested in truth as you keep wanting to assert, then let's deal with the “elohim” issue before we move on.  Moving on for no other purpose than to “move things forward” is a repudiation of any expressed desire FOR truth.

pss TO ANYONE INTERESTED:

I don't mind getting feedback from others as to whether or not I'm being unreasonable. If the consensus is that I'm being reasonable, then I will stand with what I've written.

If the consensus is that I'm being a bit unreasonable to not want to move forward until Mike deals with “elohim”… then I will move forward.

[Author]

Posts