Proof jesus is god from paul's mouth?

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
God manifested in the vessel of His Son.

You cannot ignore the vessel any more than you can your own[2Tim 2.20f]

[KangarooJack]

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

The burden of proof is on the anti-trinitarians to prove that John 1:1 should be read any different!

Yes WJ! And the fact that anti-trinitarians have such a “Heinz 57” view of John 1:1 and cannot speak with one voice shows that they are denying that which plainly stares them in their faces. Paladin says that the Word was a non-personal “it.” David says that the Word was “a god.” Gene and Jodi Lee deny the Word was pre-existent and must explain it as non-personal “intellect” and all this garbage. Kathi believes that He was pre-existent but generated out of God's body and even said once that He came out of God's “womb.” Bodhitharta says that Kathi's view is ridiculous. One would think that a person as intelligent as Kathi would know better. And Irene would rather adopt Kathi's outrageous view then let the statement speak on its own. “And the Word was God.” This is simple enough for a child to understand. Nick said that Christ was re-born but Kathi and Mandy took him to task on it. But if Christ was delivered out of God's body (or womb?) and then delivered again out of Mary, then Christ was re-born. So where does Kathi get off taking Nick to task?

They have all become wise in their own eyes. God said that He would confound the wise and this is seen here by the fact that they all have a different message of who Jesus is and how to be saved. They fail to take into account Hebrew thought. When Paul said that Christ was “firstborn” the Jewish Christians knew that he was referring to Christ in his offcial capacity as the HEAD of the body. But Kathi would say it like this,

“He is the one who God gave birth to, the first creature that came into existence”

Paul contradicts this nonsense. He clearly explained what he meant by “firstborn”:

Quote

15who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, 16because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, 17and himself is BEFORE all, and the all things in him have consisted. 18And himself is the HEAD of the body — the assembly — who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] — himself — FIRST, (Young's Literal translation)

Note that Paul did NOT say that Christ is “firstborn” because He was the first creature. It says that He is “firstborn” because all things were created IN HIM.

Therefore, the title “firstborn” means “first in rank” just as the firstborn of a family was first in rank. And Jesus was firstborn, that is, first in rank by decree and BY INHERITANCE as Isaac and Jacob. They were NOT literally firstborn. But they inherited the title and rank and privilege of the firstborn. And they inherited it BY THE DECREE OF GOD. Paul then goes on to say that Christ as firsborn is simply FIRST IN ALL THINGS, THAT IS PRE-EMINENT OR SUPREME.

“That he might become in all [things] — himself — FIRST” (YLT above).

If you like Heinz 57 on your steak then anti-trinitarianism is the spice for you. As for me, I will take Jesus as He is presented to us in the scriptures; the Jesus that was God become servant who died for me and then became Supreme Ruler again after He was exalted.

“As He has BY INHERITANCE [and by decree] obtained a much more excellent name….” (Hebrews 1:4).

AMEN LORD JESUS!

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
So Jesus INHERITED a greater name?
Clearly then he is not the one that gave him that inheritance.

He who blesses in undeniably greater [Heb7] so he is not his own God.

Wj believes Jesus was not the God of the Jews so what about you?

[princess of the king]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 09 2009,09:12)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 08 2009,17:07) Hi WJ, As you say God was fully revealed in the vessel of His Son. NH What you just said is another way of saying… God was in the flesh! WJ

WJ

this is where you loose me, tri not tri which ever may be, there are seven churches warned in revelations, surely, we are amoung them, denominations are labels, of which we are to only to be label as set apart.

it seems we disagree on what god we serve, worship. To me, when the word was spoken of old, it was brought forth by spirit, either the spirit of Yahweh himself, or messengers sent forth.

Christ was flesh, when he spoke, he spoke as a man, so the word became flesh. Christ spoke what he had seen and been taught. Christ being flesh experienced the same as I do everyday, being he walked the earth. Giving up his 'divine' right to ensure my salvation, so I cannot stand  in front of him some day and say, ' you did not know what I had to endure on earth'.

with you giving the title of 'god' i cannot attain that, knowing that i have my salvation through Christ, I can attain.

you set the standards to high for me to reach, i.e. the pharisees that added their own to sabbath keeping, it was where if you tore a piece of paper you were considered a sabbath breaker.

I do not understand this teaching you present, nor can my spirit accept it. you tell me to accept Christ, then tell me he is god.

how confusing is this when scriptures repeat constantly, how Christ spoke to the Father, prayed to him, cried out to him, did his will.

in my faith, i feel unity, knowing that Christ is there to speak for me and tell the Father that she is a good and faithful servant, i will open the door for her, so she may enter the kingdom.

in your faith, i don't have that, I have no one to open the door to the kingdom, i have no mediator, I have no one that will speak for me. your god is flesh.

we read the same scriptures, we believe so differently. as you ask for mercy on the souls that don't believe as you do, I ask for unity and for all to come to know the truth.

may supplication and favor be given to us

[Lightenup]

Good post Princess!
The trinitarians have never successfully explained how the Son could be the same being, the God, that He was with. Instead of a Father and a Son, they have the Father who is his own son and the Son who is his own Father. It kinda reminds me of the song “I'm my own grandpa.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4umaQS2KUo&feature=related

The confusion they create is really quite sad. Thinker-Not says that the non-trinitarians have “57 flavors” or ideas of God but the trinitarians also have quite a variety of ideas of the God that their own written doctrine explains and they have it written down. None of them understand it. Just read WJ and Thinker-Not's posts. Neither one believe that there was an eternal Son or an eternal Father which the doctrine declares. They say the Son wasn't always a son so the Father couldn't always have been a Father. They rant and rave about the validity of the trinity doctrine when, at the same time they don't agree with it 100%. They defend something and spend hours doing so that they admit is only “trueish” since they do not believe the “second person” of the trinity was always a son. Most trinitarians that I know believe that the second person of the trinity always was the Son. Not them, but they would have us believe that they are trinitarians. They are not true trinitarians yet call themselves trinitarians which leads to more confusion. It is one thing to defend something for hours a week when you believe it is 100% true and then a completely different thing to spend those hours defending something they only believe is true-ish. Things that are only true-ish should not be doctrines, IMO. Then they pray for mercy on our souls as if we all should believe something only true-ish. IMO that is fool-ish!

[Cindy]

Quote (princess of the king @ Sep. 09 2009,14:52)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 09 2009,09:12) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 08 2009,17:07) Hi WJ, As you say God was fully revealed in the vessel of His Son. NH What you just said is another way of saying… God was in the flesh! WJ WJ this is where you loose me, tri not tri which ever may be, there are seven churches warned in revelations, surely, we are amoung them, denominations are labels, of which we are to only to be label as set apart. it seems we disagree on what god we serve, worship. To me, when the word was spoken of old, it was brought forth by spirit, either the spirit of Yahweh himself, or messengers sent forth. Christ was flesh, when he spoke, he spoke as a man, so the word became flesh. Christ spoke what he had seen and been taught. Christ being flesh experienced the same as I do everyday, being he walked the earth. Giving up his 'divine' right to ensure my salvation, so I cannot stand  in front of him some day and say, ' you did not know what I had to endure on earth'. with you giving the title of 'god' i cannot attain that, knowing that i have my salvation through Christ, I can attain. you set the standards to high for me to reach, i.e. the pharisees that added their own to sabbath keeping, it was where if you tore a piece of paper you were considered a sabbath breaker. I do not understand this teaching you present, nor can my spirit accept it. you tell me to accept Christ, then tell me he is god. how confusing is this when scriptures repeat constantly, how Christ spoke to the Father, prayed to him, cried out to him, did his will. in my faith, i feel unity, knowing that Christ is there to speak for me and tell the Father that she is a good and faithful servant, i will open the door for her, so she may enter the kingdom. in your faith, i don't have that, I have no one to open the door to the kingdom, i have no mediator, I have no one that will speak for me. your god is flesh. we read the same scriptures, we believe so differently. as you ask for mercy on the souls that don't believe as you do, I ask for unity and for all to come to know the truth. may supplication and favor be given to us

Hello!  I do somewhat understand you are saying to W.J.  The trinity is a man made doctrine and it is so false.  Jesus had a beginning and came forth from the Father.  He was the firstborn over all creation.
Col/ 1:15-17
Rev.3:14
in John 127:5 Jesus said this
“And now O Father glorify Me together with the glory I had with Yourself before the world was.”
John 1:1 says that the Word was God and the Word was with God.  Understanding that God is a title or Family name.  We are the Sons of God, the Family of God.  In verse 14 the Word became flesh and dwelt among men.  Jesus being the firstborn of all creation of the Family of God. Why is that so hard to understand for some.  
Jesus knew were He came from and never sinned.  He now sits at the right hand of our Heavenly Father, and He is our Mediator.  We don't need no other Sacrifice now, He is the perfect Sacrifice.  No other is needed.  In the Old Testament time, they had to make atonement for their sins, and sacrifice an Animal.  We are so blessed now.  Praise God on High and His Son Jesus Christ, forever more.
Peace and Love Irene

[Proclaimer]

Quote (RokkaMan @ Aug. 30 2009,09:05)

Phillipians 2 5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: KJV Thanks Bye

So he had divine nature and humbled himself and took on human flesh.

If he took on human flesh, does that make him Adam?
If he had divine nature, does that make him God?

For Adam is Man.
YHWH is God.

You make a lot of assumptions in your post.

For a start, divine nature doesn't make you God, just as being a spirit doesn't make you God.

God shares his nature as he does his spirit.

Also, if you are equal to something, it means that you are like something, not that you are that thing.

[david]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 06 2009,10:21)

Quote (david @ Sep. 05 2009,18:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 06 2009,10:14) Quote (david @ Sep. 05 2009,18:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 06 2009,09:51) David Quote (david @ Sep. 05 2009,17:31) WJ, “you are a true trinitarian.” That doesn't mean everyone else on here who believes in the trinity are “false trinitarians,” does it? No but if I said… There is only “One True Arian” and you are it”. Then that would mean all other Arians are false or so-called Arians or not Arians at all! WJ WJ, have you ever listened to people speaking?  Talking?  Having conversations with one another? Often, they say things like “You are a true man” (meaning, you represent what the essense of a man is; not meaning “all other men are false men.) “You are a true friend.” If you just do a fast “google” on the word “true” you will come up with: “true poker” “true love” “true wealth” “true color” etc. You do understand what those phrases mean, I know you do. If someone says: “Warren buffet has true wealth” it does not mean that no one else on the planet has wealth or that everyone else on the planet has “FALSE WEALTH.” You, WJ, would understand that, as everyone else on the planet, you would understand it to mean, not that everyone else has false wealth, but that….. yes, you know it…. That Warren Buffet has wealth to a greater degree. This doesn't mean everyone else has “false wealth” does it? Nope. WJ, your English is very good.  It is your first langauge, I assume. david David Dont you understand the difference in “a true man” and “the only true man”? I think you are just being argumentive! WJ Sure, and when people say: “Warren Buffet is the only true 'buy and hold' investor” they don't mean that all the other millions of 'buy and hold' investors are “false” investors. DO THEY? They mean he buys and holds something forever.  They mean, he is the ultimate in that respect. Similarly, Jehovah God (mighty one) is the ultimate in mightiness, (almighty in fact) and hence it can easily be said of him that He is the only true God. **** If you check your dictionary, you'll find that “true” does not mean: 'the opposite of false.' David But what does false mean. It means it is not true! WJ

Yes, WJ, that is what “false” means.

But my repeated question is: What does “true” mean and does it always mean: “The opposite of false?”

The question isn't what does “false” mean, because you keep mentioning the phrase “only true God.”

If you keep mentioning this phrase, why hide when I ask you what “true” means? You cannot argue something so strongly and not know what it means.

If you know what it means in the use of my repeated questions (such as someone saying “Warren Buffet is the only true buy and hold investor…”) then why can you not answer it?

Since you argue that Jehovah being the only true God, means every reference to another God has to mean either a false god or part of the only true God (ie: trinity) then we have to look at the word “true” and how it is used.

You continue to evade. It's understandable.

Did you know the Bible says Jehovah “alone” or God “only” is wise.
But here's the thing, WJ, the Bible speaks of others who are wise.
What it means, WJ, is that COMPARED TO JEHOVAH, no one else is wise.
Similarly, Jehovah being the only true God does not (according to the meaning of “true” and according to how the Bible used the word “god”; BOTH, THINGS YOU WISH DESPARETLY TO IGNORE AND GO AWAY)….it does not mean that everyone else called “god” is a false god.

Example: Moses, etc. (Jehovah did not make Moses a false god.)

Now that you know what false means, which you've mentioned before, what does “true” mean in this sentence or others like it:

“Warren Buffet is the only true buy and hold investor…”

Question:Does it HAVE TO MEAN the other investors are “false investors” as your logic suggests?

Does it?

Does it have to mean that?

What do you think?

Can you please answer the question in bold?

Please?

Pretty please?

david.

[david]

Quote (david @ Sep. 06 2009,17:05)

“What does “no God” mean to you David? Does it mean there is “no god except” the false god that Pharaoh perceived of Moses?” –WJ (p 38) WJ, are you saying Jehovah made a false god?  You also stated: “No, I am sugesting that Pharaoh acknowledged that Moses was some sort of “a god” who he [Pharaoh] may or may not have worshipped.”–WJ (p 17) WJ, I don't think Pharaoh worshiped Moses in any way, but you believe he might have. My question to you: WHY WOULD “JEHOVAH” have “MADE” a false god for Pharaoh to possibly worship? Jehovah condemns false gods and he condemns the worship of them, does he not? david

Haven't checked yet, but I assume WJ, you have not answered this post.
What do others think?

[david]

“No. Moses was not a god at all. To Pharaoh he was and thats it.”
–WJ

WJ, I'm wondering if you could elaborate on what you mean by “god.”

Moses was “not a god at all.” But, to Pharaoh he was a god…in some way. Also, if the Bible states that Moses was a god to Pharaoh, as you say, how can you also say he was “no god at all”?

[david]

Quote

David do you believe that to YHWH, and Moses and Joshua or Aarron, and the Hebrews that Moses was “a god”? Or do you believe that Moses was to them “like God”? Think real hard David before you answer!

WJ, thankyou for the question. (I too have been away.)

No, of course I do not believe that Moses was a god to Moses? or Joshua, or Jehovah, etc.
The Bible says Jehovah made Moses a god to Pharoah.
And No, of course I do not believe that Moses was “like” God to Joshua, or Jehovah, etc.
I believe that as the Bible says, Jehovah made Moses a god (mighty one/powerful one) to Pharoah.

What a crazy situation…the great Pharaoh, having things turned around, so that Moses was the mighty one to him, the god. And of course, it was Jehovah that made him such to Pharoah.

Does that not make insane amounts of sense?

Does it not make more sense than saying Jehovah made Moses a god to Pharaoh “because” Pharaoh worshiped many gods? (How does that make sense?)

[david]

Quote

I have already explained to David a number of times that “to Pharaoh” a Polytheist YHWH made Moses “a god”. To me that means that “Pharoah believed that Moses was “a god”.

–WJ, somewhere around page 48

But, the Bible doesn't say: “Jehovah MADE PHARAOH BELIEVE that Moses was a god.” Does it?
It actually says that Jehovah made Moses a god to Pharoah.
It doesn't say, Jehovah made Pharaoh think that.
And why would Jehovah make Pharaoh think that, anyway? Doesn't matter, that's not what the Bible says.

[david]

Quote

David, the scriptures do not say “I have made you God to Pharaoh,”. I noticed you also used the big “G”. That’s not the way it is translated. Wait a minute, I just realized that the NWT translates it that way with a “Big G”. HMMM?

Does Hebrew have capital letters? Oh, that's right, there are no capitals letters in Hebrew.

Quote

But, David seems to think that because YHWH made Moses “a god to Pharaoh” then that means that Moses must be “a god” or even “a true god”.

Are you suggesting Jehovah made Moses “a god to Pharaoh” (Youngs Literal Translation) or that Jehovah made Moses “a [false] god to Pharoah”?
(I just noticed the literal type translations that actually translate the text “literally” don't include the “like” or “as.” That seems to be added to change the meaning for some reason.)

It doesn't say Jehovah made Moses “like” God or “a god” to Pharoah.
It says Jehovah made Moses either “a god” or “God” to Pharoah.
(“God” is a word that means “mighty one.”)

Quote

I say this because, besides David totally ignoring my scriptural witness above, he changes the subject.

WHAT? wJ, You, cannot accuse ME of changing the subject.

Dispite discussing “the only true God” you refuse to discuss what the word 'true' means and what the word “god” means.
How is that for evasion?

Quote

Does anyone notice that David has created a smoke screen and completely avoided my Post?

Show me the post and I will comment on it…again.

I think I had answered you, and I think I said something like this.

The question: What does Jehovah making Moses a god to Pharoah (ex 7:1) mean and what does it tell us about what the word “god/God” means?

EXODUS 23:13
““And YOU are to be on your guard respecting all that I have said to YOU; and YOU must not mention the name of other gods. It should not be heard upon your mouth.”

The Israelites were not to mention the names of the pagan gods—not that they would fail to warn their children about these gods, but they would not mention them with any esteem. (Eph 5:3)

The book of Joshua says exactly the same thing, “not to mention the names” of these pagan gods, but it goes further:

JOSHUA 23:7
“by never going in among these nations, these that remain with YOU. And YOU must not mention the names of their gods [of those nations] nor swear by them, neither must YOU serve them nor bow down to them.”

Of course, the Israelites were to keep their worship clean. Surrounded by nations with pagan gods, they were commanded not to swear to pagan gods, nor bow down to them or serve them. They only worshiped Jehovah God, so they were not polytheistic, like many pagans who worshiped many gods.

Understandably Jehovah God, as a loving Father, wanted to protect his people, the Israelites, from abominable Baal worship. His Law given through Moses made idolatry an offense worthy of death. (Deut. 13:6-10)

Jehovah God commanded the Israelites to destroy every appendage of false worship and to keep free from alliances with idolaters. (Deut. 7:2-5) He instructed the Israelites not even to “mention the name of other gods,” that is, not to mention them with worshipful regard or in such a way as to credit any existence to them.—Ex. 23:13.

They were to regard such false gods with contempt, as valueless, shameful, detestable and disgusting.—Ps. 96:5; Jer. 11:13; Ezek. 16:36; 37:23.

But my unanswered question has always been the same:

EX 7:1 Jehovah made Moses a god to Pharoah
What does this mean? What does it tell us about what “god” means?

WJ, of course Moses was not a false god, and nor was he “no god at all” as you keep saying, because clearly, the Bible says he was made a “god to Pharoah.”

So, in some sense, (in the sense and meaning of the word “god”) he was a god to Pharoah.

And no, Jehovah didn’t make Moses a god to Pharoah “because Pharaoh believed in many gods.”–WJ (p 16, p 35)

But even if that was true, it's not my question.

Oh, sorry, I now see your question:

Quote

The key words are “To Pharaoh”, the Polytheist, for Moses to YHWH or the Hebrews was not a god at all or YHWH is contradicting himself. Ye [are] my witnesses, saith [Jehovah], and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME”. Isa 43:10

Two things:
1. Either way, then, in your mind, he has to be contradicting himself. You say Moses was not a god at all. You also say he was a god to Pharaoh. The Bible also says this. So, which is true:
A. He was “a god” to Pharaoh.
Or
B. He was no god at all.

Do you think A. and B. can both be true?

Second, if you take Is 43:10 the way I believe you do, then we have a second contradiction on your part. –“no God formed…neither shall there be after me.”

But in Exodus, we have JEHOVAH MAKING Moses a god to Pharaoh. Clearly, these two scriptures are speaking of different things. If they are not, then Jehovah contradicts himself.

Anyway, CONTEXT.
“Let the nations all be collected together at one place, and let national groups be gathered together. Who [of their gods] is there among them that can tell this? Or can they cause us to hear even the first things? Let them [their gods] furnish their witnesses, that they may be declared righteous, or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’” (Isaiah 43:9)

Jehovah placed a challenge before the nations of the world. In effect, he says: ‘Let your gods prove that they are gods by accurately foretelling the future.’ As only the true God can prophesy unerringly, this test will expose all impostors. (Isaiah 48:5) But the Almighty adds yet another legal stipulation: All who claim to be true gods must furnish witnesses, both to their predictions and to the fulfillment of these.

Unlike the pagan gods, Jehovah alone is uncreated. Jehovah is comparing himself to and putting the pagan gods on trial.
But, Moses, the angels, the human judges, were not pagans gods.

You are comparing two separate things. I am trying to consider how the word “god” is used in the entire Bible, by looking at all the scriptures (including this one about Moses.)

Moses was truly made a mighty one (god) to Pharoah, and it was Jehovah himself that did this.
The pagan gods were false gods in that they weren't mighty at all. “Eyes they have, but they cannot see…etc.”

[david]

Quote

I am taking your word for it now that you have never believed that Jesus was no better than Moses. I was not trying to lie about it. I was telling you what I hear.

–Thinker.

Well, who did you 'HEAR' it from? Because then, they are the liar, or they are just grossly misinformed.
You did not hear it from me, and you cannot quote me saying that, but you can quote me “comparing” (not equating.)

Quote

Seeing that you deny that Moses was better than Jesus then explain Keith's point about the NWT in reference to how it applies the word “god” to Moses and Jesus.

–thinker

Quote

Why is that David? Why does your Bible give the big “G” to Moses without the “a God” and then gives us the “a god” for Jesus with the little “g”?

–WJ

WJ, Forgot to answer this.
Actually, if you look in other places, with reference to Jesus, the word “god” does have a capital “G.” (Isaiah 9:6 for example.)
But in John 1:1, where it is clearly talking about two separate beings, one who is “WITH” the other, a clear differentiation was made. Of course, the Greek into English could go either way, depending on context. The context, if you don't believe the trinity highly suggest the “a god” translation. If you are a trinitarian, the context could be understood differently, I suppose.

The answer, again, is: It's sort of like that “the Lord said to the Lord” scripture, that confuses people. When you take out Jehovah's name, it confuses people. Similarly, in John 1:1, If there is God who is WITH God, that's confusing, unless you believe God is with himself (a trinity). Since the greek can go either way, why not go the way the context demands (unless you are a trinitarian)?

Quote

If Jesus is better than Moses as you say you believe, then why is Jesus a lower case sort of God and Moses is “God.”

Thinker, first off, if you've been speaking to JW's for 35 years, you would know what we believe about Jesus. I think you have us confused with Islam maybe. Secondly, I know what I believe. If I repeatedly say I believe Jesus is greater than Moses (being the Son of God and all) then why do you continue to doubt that I believe that? Ask any 4 year old child of a JW who is greater.

Remember, Moses is not “The” God. He was “God” (mighty one) “to” Pharoah.

Perhaps one reason for the “God” and not “a god” is that, as Keith points out, Pharaoh was a polytheist who worshipped many gods. Again, it seems to be a matter of distinguishing (just as in John 1;1).

[david]

Quote

David, you said “ not that they would fail to warn their children about these gods, but they would not mention them with any esteem. Yet you want to call Moses “God” with esteem, right? Did they teach their children that Moses was “a God”?

“TO Pharoah” as the Bible plainly says he was, at that time. We teach children WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.
And no, I don't remember ever called Moses “God” with esteem on this site. What I do remember is asking you for 15 pages what it means that Moses was a god to Pharaoh, made such, by Jehovah? I remember wanting you to think about what the word “god” means in that context. So, to get you to think, I asked some questions. You tend to shy away from answering them.

Quote

Monotheist like Moses and the Hebrews “believe” there is only “One True God” and that all other so-called gods are not gods at all, but only figments of the imaginations of those who “believe” in more than “One True God”.

First, you yourself said Moses was “no god at all” but also stated that he was a god to Pharaoh.
And Moses was not a figment of pharaoh's imagination. The Bible actually says Jehovah made Moses god to Pharaoh. Pharoah was not imagining that, was he? Was he? (Fine, don't answer. Ignore this paragraph.)

Quote

Polytheists believe there are “other Gods” and not just “One True God”!

They either believe in the existence of, or WORSHIP more than one god. When people made that definition up and put it in their dictionaries, they were speaking of gods that are worshiped by people. They were not speaking of how the Bible uses the word “god.”

Quote

David, like all the other Arians, Polytheist and Henotheist only give lip service to there being only “One True God”, while they claim that there are other “true gods” or “Gods”.

You know, WJ, I really haven't said anything like that, in the least in the past 20 pages. I have simply repeatedly asked you the question, of what it means that Moses was a god to Pharoah. Your diversions aside, you really can't answer that question without changing your idea of what “god” means in the Bible, can you?

Now, you are going to continue to argue against things I don't even beleive.

Quote

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and *there is none else*; I am God, and *there is none like me*

You should pull out an amerian flag and start singing the national anthem. That kind of propaganda works quite well too.
“for I am God, and *there is none else*; I am God, and *there is none like me*”
Have I ever stated that there is anyone like Jehovah God?

[david]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 08 2009,05:35)

David Quote (david @ Sep. 05 2009,18:04) That Warren Buffet has wealth to a greater degree. This doesn't mean everyone else has “false wealth” does it? Nope. WJ, your English is very good.  It is your first langauge, I assume. david Ok David, lets think about your analogy! We are talking about the “Only True God” right? The Only True God” is creator and possessor of “all things”, right? So a true analogy would be that Warren Buffet has “all the wealth, he is Possessor of it all ” so that means that nobody else has wealth at all and even if they claim to have wealth it cannot be “true wealth” for Warren Buffet is possessor of all the wealth! WJ

Things are getting circular.

All I am showing you and proving and have proved, is that the statement as used in speech “the only true [x]” does not mean other references to [x] are false.

Baseball, “the only true American sport.”
Is football a false sport?

Nope.

It's a sport all right, but it does not compare with baseball in many minds. What that statement means, is that Baseball is the sport of the highest magnitude, the best sport, the ultimate sport, the standard, the biggest, the best.

It doesn't mean football is a false sport any more than Jehovah made Moses a false god.

[david]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 08 2009,05:59)

Quote (david @ Sep. 05 2009,18:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 06 2009,09:51) David Quote (david @ Sep. 05 2009,17:31) WJ, “you are a true trinitarian.” That doesn't mean everyone else on here who believes in the trinity are “false trinitarians,” does it? No but if I said… There is only “One True Arian” and you are it”. Then that would mean all other Arians are false or so-called Arians or not Arians at all! WJ WJ, I'm afraid you are simply wrong, and by yourself. I just googled “true arian.” In none of those sites, it in no way meant that the arian was “true” in that other arains were “false.” In ALL CASES, it meant “true arian” in that they exemplified that quality. So again, the entire internet and all of human language is on my side.  I know you yourself have spoken like this.  I almost feel like spending 500 hours and going through your posts, and finding where you did this, because I know you have.  We all speak like this….humans, that is. Hi David Why don't you try “only One True Arian”. You won't find anything because there is nothing to substantiate only one true Arian. My point was if I say there is “Only One True Arian and you are it” then it would mean “I believe” there is “Only One True Arian” and that unless it is you all others who claim to be  Arians are not Arians at all! You do understand this don't you David? Or will you just throw out somemore smoke and mirrors to sidestep my point! Now Google “Only One True God” and see if you come up with other “True Gods”! WJ

I agree. It can be taken more than one way.

“only true” does not in itself prove anything.

You believe it does.

In some cases it does (as you demonstrated) and in some cases, it doesn't (as I demonstrated.)

Thus, it does not in itself prove what you think it does.

That is all I am saying.

[david]

Quote

Why is it so hard for you to understand that to the Hebrews God did not make “a god” but instead he hardened the heart and blinded the mind of Pharaoh and made Moses “a god” to Pharaoh!

What does the Bible literally say? Not what you have stated, that is for sure.

[david]

Quote (david @ Sep. 07 2009,05:58)

Quote (david @ Sep. 06 2009,10:30) WJ, perhaps, you will understand this, since your avatar is piccard. Some people, feel that the actor William Shatner will always be the “only true Captain” of the enterprise. (When people say this, they mean that other captains, such as Piccard (don't know his real name) will come and go, but William Shatner will always be the standard to which everyone else is measured.  They mean he was the ultimate, the original, the best…. The DO NOT MEAN that every other captain will be a false captain. WJ, let me ask you this question, and please do answer: If someone said to you: “William Shatner will always be the only true Captain of the Enterprise” how would you understand their comments: Would they mean: 1. The other captains, although being captains, are “false captains.” 2. William Shatner, the original, the best, the ultimate, the template by which other captains are measured, will never be equaled…he is the ultimate captain, in every sense of the word “captain.” Which of those two thoughts are meant by the statment? 1 or 2? Obviously, you cannot answer this directly.  So, I'll do something interesting.  I want you to signal me: A. Not answering means #2. B. Answering means #1 or #2, depending on what your answer is. david

Since you did not answer, WJ, that means that the sentence given does not mean that Piccard is necessarily a false captain.

We are making progress.

david

[david]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 08 2009,08:56)

Quote (david @ Sep. 06 2009,01:05) “What does “no God” mean to you David? Does it mean there is “no god except” the false god that Pharaoh perceived of Moses?” –WJ (p 38) WJ, are you saying Jehovah made a false god?  You also stated: “No, I am sugesting that Pharaoh acknowledged that Moses was some sort of “a god” who he [Pharaoh] may or may not have worshipped.”–WJ (p 17) WJ, I don't think Pharaoh worshiped Moses in any way, but you believe he might have. My question to you: WHY WOULD “JEHOVAH” have “MADE” a false god for Pharaoh to possibly worship? Jehovah condemns false gods and he condemns the worship of them, does he not? david David Quote (david @ Sep. 06 2009,01:05) WHY WOULD “JEHOVAH” have “MADE” a false god for Pharaoh to possibly worship? Jehovah condemns false gods and he condemns the worship of them, does he not? david Why is it so hard for you to understand that to the Hebrews God did not make “a god” but instead he hardened the heart and blinded the mind of Pharaoh and made Moses “a god” to Pharaoh! Did YHWH contradict himself David. Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME”.  Isa 43:10 “Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and “DO NOT MENTION THE NAME OF OTHER GODS, NOR LET THEM BE HEARD FROM YOUR MOUTH. Exod 23:13 I know these scriptures do not support your theology, but just the same they are true! For believers there are “No Gods but One”, and for the believer all other gods are false and just a figment of the imagination of the blinded hearts of men. To a child the flying cookie monster may be real, but the flying cookie monster is an imaginary figure that has no existence as a sentient being! So=called gods by men are just that! WJ

My questions are pretty much simple yes or no questions.

You seem to have missed/avoided them.

I'll make them more noticeable in the quote.

[Author]

Posts