- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 09 2011,18:02) Thanks Kar. I would say that, according to the actual scriptures, the Hebrews were more like henotheists or monolatrists. For they surely didn't believe in the literal existence of only one god, period. The phrase “God OF gods” is proof of this.
mike
MikeThe phrase God of gods proves no such thing.
The word “Of” is not in the text. God is the God of the living and not of the dead.
He is not the God of false gods and idols.
WJ
Quote (Istari @ May 08 2011,15:14)
A Title describes a Class or Group.
JASo all other so-called gods are of the same “class and group” as YHWH?
You guys can throw up all these smoke screens all you want but the words “Only One True God” are litteral and simply mean there are no other gods, period.
WJ
No they don't Keith – for if they did, then it would mean that Jesus is not a god at all, for he is not the one HE HIMSELF calls “the only true God”. In fact, he very clearly lists himself as someone OTHER THAN that One in his prayer TO “the only true God”.
You can't just say to yourself, “Well, it clearly doesn't list Jesus as our 'one God', so I'll just ASSUME that the inclusion of this other person into our 'one God' is implied.”
That's crazy talk, Keith………….and the reason I stopped our debates. How can I argue against crazy? Our “one God” is CLEARLY listed as “THE FATHER”, while Jesus is listed as someone OTHER THAN our “one God”. If YOU want to pretend these are NOT the words of 1 Cor 8:6, then have at it. But I'm done wasting my time having in depth discussions about scriptural matters with a pretender. I will stick to the “pop shots”.
And FYI, the term “so-called gods” is not in the scriptures. Paul says “there are those called gods, for there are many gods and many lords, in heaven and on earth”.
Also, if the word “OF” is not in the Hebrew, what exactly do you suppose the term “God OF gods”, as it is translated in every Bible in existence, really means?
mike
Hi Christians,
Exodus 20:3 (King James Version)
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Yep. No other gods, period, WJ. That's why Jehova told us have no other gods before him. Not false gods. Not so-called gods. Not poetic or metaphoric language. Straight forward, to the point language. Evidently your knowledge of ancient culture(s) is not very informed/educated. I have personaly done all this research myself in the search for the truth. What everone here is posting to you is knowledge that they, myself, and historians have discovered/revealed in this day and age. If there are/were no other gods period, then, Jehova would not have any need to give this commandment. I can only hope you can perceive the simple common sense here.
With Love and Respect,
Wispring
Hello,
I choose that there is only one true Godhead which includes the Father, Son and Spirit. I know that is not one of the choices and so I can't really vote here.
Many religions recognize one God and their God is the cause of everything, or the 'principal.' I believe that the God of the Christians is all-sufficient to create AND to be relational to that which He creates, not just be the 'principal' but also the 'agent.' That is what makes Christianity unique. The Christian God is involved with His creation and did not need to create someone else to reach out to creation for Him. The Christian God is love AND loving…the Christian God is both distant AND near. The Christian God is all sufficient to create AND save…He has no need to create someone else to save those He created. He is both principal and agent…they are one…the Father, the Son with their Holy Spirit. Principal and agent in one God…two persons and their Spirit. The Father is the principal, the Son is the agent with their Holy Spirit. Without the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christians would be like other religions having a God as a distant 'principal' only and thus not really having the true God at all.
I choose the Christian God who is relational.
Jesus said “Believe in God, believe also in Me.” Sometimes the context is referring to the Father as God and sometimes the context is referring to the fulness of God as the Father, Son and Spirit. Sometimes the context is referring to the Son as God or Lord.
The Father did not need to create a Son or Spirit…the Father always had the Son and Spirit because the Father has always been an all-sufficient God…El Shaddai. The fulness of God is a God who is both 'principal' and 'agent.' That is what sets the Christian God far apart from other religious concept of God.
Kathi
Keith!
Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him.Deu 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
Notice that in both Scriptures LORD is in all capital letters.
1Cr 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.
Eph 4:1 ¶ I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
We understand that LORD, Lord, God, The Word of God are all titles. When in the Old Test. it says LORD, it is referred to Jehovah God. In the footnotes of our Rye Study Bible it says the reason LORD, and Lord was used, because the Translators did not want to use God's word in vain…..
Jesus in most places is called the Son of God. Since He is the literal Son of God, it is a common practice to use God in both John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8….. That takes nothing away from Jehovah God….. He by His Son's word is above Jesus and all….
Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Praise to our Almighty Jehovah God…..To Him be glory an praise forever more, Amen
Peace Irene
Quote (Lightenup @ May 11 2011,06:49) Hello, I choose that there is only one true Godhead which includes the Father, Son and Spirit. I know that is not one of the choices and so I can't really vote here.
Many religions recognize one God and their God is the cause of everything, or the 'principal.' I believe that the God of the Christians is all-sufficient to create AND to be relational to that which He creates, not just be the 'principal' but also the 'agent.' That is what makes Christianity unique. The Christian God is involved with His creation and did not need to create someone else to reach out to creation for Him. The Christian God is love AND loving…the Christian God is both distant AND near. The Christian God is all sufficient to create AND save…He has no need to create someone else to save those He created. He is both principal and agent…they are one…the Father, the Son with their Holy Spirit. Principal and agent in one God…two persons and their Spirit. The Father is the principal, the Son is the agent with their Holy Spirit. Without the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christians would be like other religions having a God as a distant 'principal' only and thus not really having the true God at all.
I choose the Christian God who is relational.
Jesus said “Believe in God, believe also in Me.” Sometimes the context is referring to the Father as God and sometimes the context is referring to the fulness of God as the Father, Son and Spirit. Sometimes the context is referring to the Son as God or Lord.
The Father did not need to create a Son or Spirit…the Father always had the Son and Spirit because the Father has always been an all-sufficient God…El Shaddai. The fulness of God is a God who is both 'principal' and 'agent.' That is what sets the Christian God far apart from other religious concept of God.
Kathi
Cathiwen I go to the restaurant ,I believe that that restaurant exist,and that what I have eated was made by the chef that i have not seen ,but taste the meal he made for me,
i also did not meet the owner of the restaurant ,but i know he also exist,and the restaurant is not the owner or the chef or meal,even do there was a good spirit in the dwellings with soft music.
I end up paying the bill to the waitress that served me but she also was not the restaurant or owner or chef,and was only part of the ambience or spirit and so i left thinking it the meal that is was very good
Pierre
Pierre,
And then there is the the favorite little bbq stand that is initiated, owned, and run by the father, and managed by the son…he is the buyer, the cook and serves the food…their spirit fills the air and people love the food and service and recognize the father and son as the makers of the little bbq stand. See, Pierre? Without even one of them there is no bbq stand.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ May 11 2011,10:26) Pierre,
And then there is the the favorite little bbq stand that is initiated, owned, and run by the father, and managed by the son…he is the buyer, the cook and serves the food…their spirit fills the air and people love the food and service and recognize the father and son as the makers of the little bbq stand. See, Pierre? Without even one of them there is no bbq stand.Kathi
KathiBBq are suppose to be cancerogene ,burned mead,??
and no Kathi the son will remain the son and the father will remain the father ,
they always be together in the spirit(his will) of the father just as anyone who fully obey the father will be one in spirit with them ,
Pierre
Nice speech Kathi. Too bad most of your understanding doesn't align with the scriptures.
For example, Jehovah chose Cyrus as a messiah, shepherd and savior of Israel. But according to your reasoning, Jehovah was unable to save Israel without Cyrus. According to your reasoning, Cyrus is also part of the “fullness” of God, because Israel wouldn't have been saved without him.
Do you get the point I'm making, Kathi? Just because God CHOSE Jesus as the tool through which HE HIMSELF would save mankind does not mean that God could not have chosen to do it WITHOUT Jesus.
Jesus is totally dependent on his God and our God, just as we all are. Jehovah, on the other hand, is NOT dependent on Jesus for anything. Jesus is one of the millions of servants of God, any of whom God could do without if He wanted to.
WE are dependent upon Jesus for our salvation because God willed this to be the case. But don't confuse that by thinking God would be powerless to save us if not for Jesus. It is quite the opposite, for Jesus would be powerless to even lift a finger if not for his God.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ May 10 2011,23:49) Hello, I choose that there is only one true Godhead which includes the Father, Son and Spirit. I know that is not one of the choices and so I can't really vote here.
Many religions recognize one God and their God is the cause of everything, or the 'principal.' I believe that the God of the Christians is all-sufficient to create AND to be relational to that which He creates, not just be the 'principal' but also the 'agent.' That is what makes Christianity unique. The Christian God is involved with His creation and did not need to create someone else to reach out to creation for Him. The Christian God is love AND loving…the Christian God is both distant AND near. The Christian God is all sufficient to create AND save…He has no need to create someone else to save those He created. He is both principal and agent…they are one…the Father, the Son with their Holy Spirit. Principal and agent in one God…two persons and their Spirit. The Father is the principal, the Son is the agent with their Holy Spirit. Without the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christians would be like other religions having a God as a distant 'principal' only and thus not really having the true God at all.
I choose the Christian God who is relational.
Jesus said “Believe in God, believe also in Me.” Sometimes the context is referring to the Father as God and sometimes the context is referring to the fulness of God as the Father, Son and Spirit. Sometimes the context is referring to the Son as God or Lord.
The Father did not need to create a Son or Spirit…the Father always had the Son and Spirit because the Father has always been an all-sufficient God…El Shaddai. The fulness of God is a God who is both 'principal' and 'agent.' That is what sets the Christian God far apart from other religious concept of God.
Kathi
Kathy! Do yourself a favor and read all those Scriptures I quoted. There is only ONE true God, not two…. Scriptures say so. You might as well believe in a trinity. Your half way there anyway…..
Peace IreneQuote (Pastry @ May 11 2011,20:26) Quote (Lightenup @ May 10 2011,23:49) Hello, I choose that there is only one true Godhead which includes the Father, Son and Spirit. I know that is not one of the choices and so I can't really vote here.
Many religions recognize one God and their God is the cause of everything, or the 'principal.' I believe that the God of the Christians is all-sufficient to create AND to be relational to that which He creates, not just be the 'principal' but also the 'agent.' That is what makes Christianity unique. The Christian God is involved with His creation and did not need to create someone else to reach out to creation for Him. The Christian God is love AND loving…the Christian God is both distant AND near. The Christian God is all sufficient to create AND save…He has no need to create someone else to save those He created. He is both principal and agent…they are one…the Father, the Son with their Holy Spirit. Principal and agent in one God…two persons and their Spirit. The Father is the principal, the Son is the agent with their Holy Spirit. Without the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christians would be like other religions having a God as a distant 'principal' only and thus not really having the true God at all.
I choose the Christian God who is relational.
Jesus said “Believe in God, believe also in Me.” Sometimes the context is referring to the Father as God and sometimes the context is referring to the fulness of God as the Father, Son and Spirit. Sometimes the context is referring to the Son as God or Lord.
The Father did not need to create a Son or Spirit…the Father always had the Son and Spirit because the Father has always been an all-sufficient God…El Shaddai. The fulness of God is a God who is both 'principal' and 'agent.' That is what sets the Christian God far apart from other religious concept of God.
Kathi
Kathy! Do yourself a favor and read all those Scriptures I quoted. There is only ONE true God, not two…. Scriptures say so. You might as well believe in a trinity. Your half way there anyway…..
Peace Irene
IreneKathi seems not to understand the father the son and who or what is the holy spirit
that is were her confusion lays
Pierre
Worshipping Jesus,
I have no desire to debate the correct interpretation of the various scriptures we have addressed in our conversation as I believe it would distract from the topic of the thread.
I do believe that you understand that the word “god” can have more than one meaning and that was my point to begin with.
I originally thought that you and Mike were have a discussion with each of you using a different definition for the word “god” but it seems I was in error since Mike seems to be stating there is more than one deity.
I am not following his explanation of why that is the case beyond a scan that revealed him using as an example Moses boasting God is superior to the gods of other nations of that time.
If you wish to discuss the interpretation of those scriptures then feel free to start a thread on the ones you desire to discuss in the Scriptural/Biblical forum.
Hi Kerwin,
What does “the God of gods” mean to you? Does it mean that He is the “Deity of others who are not quite deities, but we call them by the same title in the same phrase”?
How about when God presides over the assembly of gods and passes judgement over them? Who do you suppose the gods are that assemble with God?
When Paul calls Satan the god of this age, does Paul hint in any way that Satan is a “false god” or a “so-called god” or anything other than exactly what he calls him?
How about when Paul clearly said “there are many gods and many lords, both in heaven and on earth”. Who are these gods he was talking about? He didn't call them “so-called gods”, as many translations put it. He simply called them gods.
Who do you suppose the Prince of Persia is that detained Daniel's angel for 21 days until Michael the archangel came to his aid? You can imagine that whoever is was, it would take a very powerful being to detain an angel of God on a mission from God.
These are all questions running through my head about this subject. I don't know all the answers, but I'm quite sure of one thing: People today have been brainwashed and guilted into thinking there is only one, mighty, spiritual being in existence. This is the basis for the Trinity Doctrine. These people think if they can convince others that only one god literally exists period, then they can use the scriptures where Jesus is called “god” as proof that he IS the literal “only one god”.
So they make up stories about “so-called gods” and “false gods” and such. But I don't remember ever reading about any “false god” in any scripture. Some translations use the term “false gods”, but it is never what the Hebrew words actually say.
Consider this Kerwin: The magic practicing priests that served Pharaoh were able to perform many of the same miracles God performed through Moses and Aaron. By what power did they turn their staffs into snakes, or make frogs appear out of nowhere, for instance?
So who's to say that Dagon and Molech aren't really gods? All we know is that we are to worship the God OF all the other gods – the One who presides over the assembly of gods. But scripture doesn't teach that literally no god other than Jehovah exists anymore than it teaches that literally no savior other than Jehovah exists. There exist emphatic statements about “no other savior” and “no other god”. But to take them as LITERAL statements is to have contradictions with many, many scriptures.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
peace to you,
mikeMike Boll.
I will have to check Hebrew words are translated “false”.
As you, or anyone who cares to check, it is easy to discover that the words elohim and theos have multiple definitions. One must be careful to apply the correct definition when they are used.
A fallen god is one who has fallen from God's grace. That the god or gods being spokken of are fallen is obvious from the context of the scripture in every case I know.
You are correct as the word in some scriptures is more correctly translated devils.
Other words translated to false gods are basically the equivilent to lies, falsehood, vanity, etc.
Hi Kerwin,
It is clear that you still don't comprehend what I'm saying. In my last post, I listed 9 paragraphs. Perhaps, when you get the time (no rush), you could quote one of those paragraphs at a time, and your brief understanding – which may or may not differ from mine.
Then, if we still don't agree about “god” completely, we will at least know where we each stand on the issue.
peace to you,
mikeMike Boll,
You asked:
Quote What does “the God of gods” mean to you? Does it mean that He is the “Deity of others who are not quite deities, but we call them by the same title in the same phrase”?
It is simply a title that lacks written context in every scripture I could read so it requires you to figure out the unwritten context from other scripture.
The process of elimination tells us it cannot be other deities.
That is why I mention that the Hebrew words meaning demon and various words that basically mean lies are translated into the words “false gods” in the NIV translation.
Scripture also states that other deities are no gods.
Quote 2 Kings 19 (Young's Literal Translation) 17`Truly, O Jehovah, kings of Asshur have laid waste the nations, and their land,
18and have put their gods into fire, for they [are] no gods, but work of the hands of man, wood and stone, and destroy them.
Hi Kerwin,
I disagree. I think that since they use the same exact word twice in the phrase “God of gods”, they are not implying that Jehovah is the God of anything less than a god. “King of kings” doesn't imply that the lessor kings are any less a king than the King OF them, right? Same with “Lord of lords”. So why would “God of gods” be different?
Your scripture speaks of idols that men have made. Of course a man-made idol is no god at all. But is Jehovah the God of man-made idols? Of course not. So these idols are obviously not what they had in mind when they spoke of the gods that Jehovah was the God OF, right?
Here are two scriptures for you:
Exodus 12:12 NASB
'For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments— I am the LORD.Numbers 33:4 NASB
while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn whom the LORD had struck down among them. The LORD had also executed judgments on their gods.
Kerwin, do you suppose it was on man-made idols that God executed judgement? Or perhaps the gods who were able to turn staffs into snakes and produce frogs out of thin air, etc?Compare that with Psalm 82:1, which speaks of gods that God assembles with and passes judgements on. Surely these gods are not man-made idols, right?
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2011,08:07) Hi Kerwin, I disagree. I think that since they use the same exact word twice in the phrase “God of gods”, they are not implying that Jehovah is the God of anything less than a god. “King of kings” doesn't imply that the lessor kings are any less a king than the King OF them, right? Same with “Lord of lords”. So why would “God of gods” be different?
Your scripture speaks of idols that men have made. Of course a man-made idol is no god at all. But is Jehovah the God of man-made idols? Of course not. So these idols are obviously not what they had in mind when they spoke of the gods that Jehovah was the God OF, right?
Here are two scriptures for you:
Exodus 12:12 NASB
'For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments— I am the LORD.Numbers 33:4 NASB
while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn whom the LORD had struck down among them. The LORD had also executed judgments on their gods.
Kerwin, do you suppose it was on man-made idols that God executed judgement? Or perhaps the gods who were able to turn staffs into snakes and produce frogs out of thin air, etc?Compare that with Psalm 82:1, which speaks of gods that God assembles with and passes judgements on. Surely these gods are not man-made idols, right?
peace,
mike
Mike,Are you stating that Jehovah Elohim is God of daemons?
Remember scripture instructs the people of God not to sacrifice their children to daemons.
Are stating that other nations regarded their idols as deities?
Quote Deuteronomy 32 (Young's Literal Translation) 16They make Him zealous with strangers, With abominations they make Him angry.
17They sacrifice to demons — no god! Gods they have not known — New ones — from the vicinity they came; Not feared them have your fathers!
If so then I cannot disagree is God is the over everything and everyone.
I am prone to think they just regarded them as images of their deities just like Catholics regard statues of their Saints as immages of their Saints.
Quote 1 Corinthians 10 (Young's Literal Translation) 20[no,] but that the things that the nations sacrifice — they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not wish you to come into the fellowship of the demons.
21Ye are not able the cup of the Lord to drink, and the cup of demons; ye are not able of the table of the Lord to partake, and of the table of demons;
I have plans to address Psalms 82 and other scripture at a later date.
Quote (kerwin @ May 18 2011,22:47)
Are you stating that Jehovah Elohim is God of daemons?
Hi Kerwin,Of course. Why wouldn't He be? After all, He is the God of everything everywhere, as you implied. He is not only the God of Michael the archangel and the “good” angels, but also of Satan and his demons.
Quote (kerwin @ May 18 2011,22:47)
I am prone to think they just regarded them as images of their deities just like Catholics regard statues of their Saints as immages of their Saints.
Scripture seems to distinguish between when someone is speaking of an idol, which is no god at all, and when they're speaking of one of the gods of the other nations.I'll await your comments on my scriptures before saying more. I would also like to know how you think Pharaoh's priests conjured up frogs out of thin air.
peace,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
