Monotheism = Belief in Only One God

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2011,11:01)

Quote (kerwin @ May 24 2011,16:21)

Good point!

Quote (shimmer @ May 24 2011,16:03)

Hi Kerwin, how are you? Hope your well.

I am doing well shimmer. I hope the same is true for you.

Kerwin, I am glad you are well

May 25, 2011 at 2:21 am#246797

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2011,22:27)

Mike Boll,

What we know from scripture is that both demons and angels are called elohim. We also know that Jehovah Elohim is the Elohim of Elohim.

Right. Which brings us back to my first point. Substitute any words you want in the phrase “Elohim of elohim”. The meaning of the first word will always be the meaning of the second, with the indication that the first one is OVER the others. For example:

King of kings means the second ones mentioned are in fact kings. So if we translate “elohim” as ruler, we get:

Ruler of rulers. See? The second ones are the same thing as the first one, but less powerful or whatever.

Judge of judges – same thing.
Mighty One of mighty ones – same thing.
One to be feared of the ones to be feared – same thing.

So if you think the first “elohim” is literally referring to a god, then the second elohim is equally referring to gods, albeit lessor gods.

You seem to want “Elohim of elohim” to be saying “LITERAL God” of “Ones who aren't really gods at all”. But it doesn't work that way. The Lord of lords is the Lord of others who are ALSO equally lords. It does not mean he is the Lord of “others who aren't really lords at all”. If it did, the phrase would be “Lord of non-lords”, or something to that effect.

Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2011,22:27)

We also know it was not to angels and demons that he gave the law (word of God). We also know he did not give it just to the priests or judges but instead gave it to the whole nation.

It is not talking about the written Law that Moses copied down. It is talking about judges and prophets, to whom God spoke in a one on one situation. It is talking about the word of God that came to Isaiah and Elijah and Samson through visions or angels, etc. It did not refer to the entire nation of Israel.

Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2011,22:27)

I am prone to believe that in biblical times they would view those who did miracles as gods as they did with Paul and Barnabas on at least one occasion. So if a demon enabled someone else to do miracles works and that demon was credited with doing so then it would easily be considered a god by those who witnessed the deed and others whom believed their account.

There is a difference between these people thinking Paul and Barnabas were gods and Moses referring to the gods of the Egyptians. Moses had a clear understanding of God, and yet he called those others “gods”. What exactly is a god, Kerwin? It is commonly thought to be a being with incredible power that can affect mortal men or nature, etc. Don't these demons fit into this category? Doesn't God Himself also fit into it? The difference is, not that one is a god and the others aren't, but that One is the God OF all the other powerful beings who can affect the lives of mortal men and nature, etc.

peace,
mike

May 25, 2011 at 2:33 am#246799

Blocked

Quote (shimmer @ May 23 2011,05:23)

There is only one true God. It is either Jesus or it is the Father. And the verse above shows the only true God AND Jesus Christ whom God sent.

Hi Shimmer,

I hear you and agree that Jesus is not “the only true God” he was praying to at the time.

But Jesus IS called a god, right? So does that mean he is a “false god”? This is where it gets a little tricky, because many want to take “only true God” to mean there literally are no other gods in scripture.

But you have posted a good source recently who wrote about “apart from Me, there is no savior”. We could truthfully say that God is the “only true Savior”, because no one else has a chance of saving anyone apart from God. And while “only true Savior” would be emphasizing that God is the “Savior of saviors”, it wouldn't be saying that those like Saul and David and Deborah were not saviors at all – or that they were “false saviors”.

See? “Only True Savior” would not be taken LITERALLY, as if there were literally no other saviors, period. Jesus surely isn't a “false savior”, right?

It is the same with “Only True God”. It does not mean there are LITERALLY no other gods, for Jesus is the only begotten god, according to John 1:18. It is a statement of emphasis, indicating that Jehovah is above all other gods, not a literal statement meaning there are no other gods, period. Paul himself says there are many gods and many lords, right before calling the Father our “one God” and Jesus our “one Lord”. Surely Jesus being our “one Lord” doesn't mean that Abraham and Elijah and Samuel and King David, and the other hundred people of God called “lord” in the scriptures were “false lords”. It is a statement of emphasis, and not to be taken literally, as if Jesus was the ONLY “lord” who ever existed.

peace,
mike

May 25, 2011 at 6:20 am#246817

Participant

Mike Boll,

Please be patient as I am busy addressing other issues currently but I hope to get back with you on these issues in a timely fashion.

Thank you!

May 25, 2011 at 8:49 am#246825

Participant

To all,

I understand what you're saying (about God being a title).

I said I did before.

That would be like the ONE WORLD LEADER who is to come.

There will be other LEADERS under him. And even smaller LEADERS of other seperate groups. That doesn't make them the ONE WORLD LEADER though.

(just an example so you know that I understand).

There is unitarian and binitarian.

Which one are you?

May 25, 2011 at 9:57 pm#246858

Participant

Still waiting for an answer, JA or Mike. I know your belief Kerwin but JA and Mikes are not so clear.

Unitarian, binitarian, or ditheist and do you know the difference?

Unitarian: A Biblical Unitarian is one who holds to the existence of One True God and acknowledges that He created the Host and He sent Jesus Christ to mankind. Any Monotheist also qualifies as a Unitarian.

Radical Unitarianism: A Radical Unitarian denies the pre-existence of Jesus Christ and defines Christ as being a product of the Father from the time of the conception in the womb of Mariam.

Ditheist: A Ditheist claims that there were two true Supreme Gods in existence who were both co-eternal and co-equal.

Binitarian/Binitarianism: Of or belonging to a belief in a Godhead of two persons only

May 25, 2011 at 11:38 pm#246863

Blocked

Quote (shimmer @ May 25 2011,15:57)

Ditheist: A Ditheist claims that there were two true Supreme Gods in existence who were both co-eternal and co-equal.

So THAT'S the “technical term” for what Kathi is, huh? Interesting.

May 26, 2011 at 12:07 am#246866

Blocked

Quote (shimmer @ May 25 2011,02:49)

That would be like the ONE WORLD LEADER who is to come.

There will be other LEADERS under him. And even smaller LEADERS of other seperate groups. That doesn't make them the ONE WORLD LEADER though.

(just an example so you know that I understand).

Exactly Shimmer. Also, the “ONE World Leader” wording does not mean the others under him are “false leaders” or “idols”. Just that they are real leaders who are under the “One True World Leader”.

“God” is a title, and you must decide from context whether it is talking about a human leader, like Deborah, or a very powerful spirit being, like Satan. But when talking about very powerful spirit beings like Satan, I consider the term “god” to mean exactly what it says.

I didn't use to, because I too was raised in the 21st century where it is hammered down our throats that there is LITERALLY only one god. The more times I read the scriptures, the more my 21st century thoughts give way to the Biblical usage and understanding of gods.

When Moses said God kicked the butts of the Egyptian gods, he wasn't talking about some “non-gods”, or “false gods”, or “man-made idols”. He wasn't talking about a human leader, like Deborah. He was talking about real, live, powerful spirit beings who can easily affect human beings and nature – which is STILL TODAY the actual definition of “god”.

And when Asaph spoke of God passing judgment over the other gods in the assembly of gods, he was also speaking about real, live, powerful spirit beings, who are not only “gods” by title, but also in actuality. Kerwin thinks Psalm 82:1 speaks of human judges and kings, but when have many of them assembled together in a meeting place with God Almighty? “Assembly” means a bunch of people getting together in one place. Now if God Almighty is there in person, what human being could have also been there? The time in Job where all the angels came to present themselves before Jehovah would be an example of an “assembly of gods”, IMO.

Shimmer, I can't remember the name of what I am technically called from that source you posted about monotheism. But I'm the one who believes in the existence of many gods and many lords, with God Almighty being the God OF all the other gods, and the ONLY One we should worship and serve as our God. I believe this is exactly in line with what the Hebrews thought, despite the years of scholars claiming the Israelites were a “strictly monotheistic” culture. That claim is so far away from the reality of the scriptures that it isn't funny. I suspect this claim was started so the Trinni's could say, “Well, the Hebrews believed there was LITERALLY only ONE God, and Jesus is called “god”, so therefore he must be that ONE God.”

peace,
mike

May 26, 2011 at 4:27 am#246884

Lightenup

Participant

Mike,
I am a Christian…a believer in the Father and the Son and their Holy Spirit. Let's leave it at that, ok. Thanks!

Kathi

May 26, 2011 at 5:20 am#246887

Participant

Mike Boll,

I agree that according to the context that Jahovah God is God of God can be spoken of in the context of mighty and thus it could also be started the Jahovah the Mighty is the Mighty of Mighty.

I also agree with what you stated earlier and that is that neither angels nor demons can be compared with God. I believe this is true because without God they would not exist for in him they have their being. In this context they are not God and so there is only one true God. In the same context the idols of other peoples do not represent gods as demons are not Gods.

In Psalms 82 gods is used in another context as Jesus interpreted that scripture himself to instruct us that it spoke of those to whom the Word of God came. The Law of Mosses is the Word of God as it the rest of scripture.

It is speaking about the entire nation because God did call them the children of the most high in the Law of Moses just like he stated he had in Psalms 82. He did not literally call them gods but just consider that a child of a human being is a human being and in the same manner a child of God is a god.

God does and did judge in the whole assembly of all his people not just their judges, prophets, and leaders.

May 27, 2011 at 4:15 am#247017

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 26 2011,12:07)

Quote (shimmer @ May 25 2011,02:49)

That would be like the ONE WORLD LEADER who is to come.

There will be other LEADERS under him. And even smaller LEADERS of other separate groups. That doesn't make them the ONE WORLD LEADER though.

(just an example so you know that I understand).

peace,
mike

Hi Mike. Ok… I think I may be more Unitarian maybe… But my beliefs have changed. I used to at least word thing's differently. I remember asking the question here, about a year ago, “If a Muslim asked you the question….”Do you believe there is only one God”… what would you say?

Nick didn't answer, you didn't answer, Ed didn't answer, etc, and I asked JA in pm.

My answer was NO there is more than one God, because that's what Jesus is, God the Son. With God the Father. (the whole point is that a Muslim could kill you if you don't agree in monotheism… if there is a future war) (well at least from what iv read).

But I explain it differently now. Which is why I THINK it would be more Unitarian.. or what you said.

Thanks for your reply though.

May 29, 2011 at 1:56 am#247206

Blocked

Quote (shimmer @ May 26 2011,22:15)

Hi Mike. Ok… I think I may be more Unitarian maybe…

Hi Shimmer,

I would become a member of a Unitarian Church, but they don't believe in the pre-existence of Jesus.

May 29, 2011 at 2:10 am#247209

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2011,23:20)

I agree that according to the context that Jahovah God is God of God can be spoken of in the context of mighty and thus it could also be started the Jahovah the Mighty is the Mighty of Mighty.

Yeah. That's what is meant by “God OF gods” and “God Most High” and “God Almighty”.

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2011,23:20)

In this context they are not God and so there is only one true God.

True they are not “God”, but they most definitely are gods.

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2011,23:20)

In the same context the idols of other peoples do not represent gods as demons are not Gods.

Idols are something different than gods. They are man-made pieces of inanimate objects that cannot see or hear or speak. Demons on the other hand, can do all of these things and much more. Here's the definition of “demons”:
daimonion
1) the divine power, deity, divinity
2) a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men
3) evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil

Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2011,23:20)

I agree that the gods mentioned there were men to whom the word of God came, and not spirit gods. But I disagree that Jesus' words “to whom the word of God came” included anyone and everyone who has ever read the Law and the Prophets. I believe he referred only to judges and prophets that God spoke to.

mike

May 29, 2011 at 10:42 am#247253

Participant

I take back what I said. I remember what I used to believe in now. It's all coming back to me. And I don't think I fit into any of those categories.

June 2, 2011 at 9:23 am#247643

Participant

Quote (shimmer @ May 29 2011,16:42)

I take back what I said. I remember what I used to believe in now. It's all coming back to me. And I don't think I fit into any of those categories.

Shimmer,

Unitarian is a generic term as well as the name of a religious denomination.

Anians are unitarians that hold the tenet that Jesus preexists his conception.

I am most likely similar the the Ebionites of the early centuries but little is known of their doctrine and less is certain about it. A more modern term is Socinianism.

June 7, 2011 at 10:31 am#248128

Rena

Participant

Interesting Kerwin, thanks. I didn't know that. I think I would be an Arian then.

June 8, 2011 at 2:03 am#248185

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 29 2011,12:56)

Quote (shimmer @ May 26 2011,22:15)

Hi Mike. Ok… I think I may be more Unitarian maybe…

Hi Shimmer,

I would become a member of a Unitarian Church, but they don't believe in the pre-existence of Jesus.

Even if they did believe that, is it not better to be a member of the Body of Christ/the Church anyway?

At least that way you do all in the name of Jesus instead of in the name of “Unitarian”.

June 8, 2011 at 2:05 am#248187

Blocked

June 8, 2011 at 2:08 am#248188

Proclaimer

Participant

This poll is like a poll that says:

Have you stopped robbing banks
Are you still robbing banks.

There is no option for those who do not rob banks.

Quote

There is Only One True God literally!
There are other True Gods with the Only One True God!
I don't know!

When you capitalise God, that is the same as THE God.
You have no option for theos.

Here is an example to show the inadequacy:

There is Only One True Adam literally!
There are other True Adams with the Only One True Adam!
I don't know!

The above would need the option:
There are other true adams (men/mankind) with the Only One True Adam!

And indeed that would be the correct answer too.

June 8, 2011 at 4:21 am#248207