- This topic has 713 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
@t8
Please show me the contexts where each person/persons that you claim is called theos and I will be better able to tell you to whom they are theos of. You can do that one person at a time if you like. I am really interested in seeing if you can back up your claims here.
Thanks, t8. I know your time is valuable too. This is an important perspective to discuss dig into regarding others called theos and worthy of taking time with it.
Always busy Kathi, but your debate here is not high priority. I will continue to debate, when other more important things are done. Priority is not high because it seems unlikely that I am going to learn anything here except to learn a lesson as to how and why people create false doctrines about God or idols. You are not interested in the truth, rather just being right for pride’s sake. But this is why you are wrong because the Spirit of Truth does not lead a person who wants to be the truth or is so proud to think they are right even when scripture teaches otherwise. Rather, the Spirit leads a person who knows they are wrong, but wants to align with the truth. And only a humble heart can receive the precious truths of God. God casts down pride.
Kathi I am not going to bother with a concise list. I believe I have compiled such a list many times before. You can find it in my writings and posts.
In fact I point you to this page which I wrote:
@t8,
Someday when you are face to face with Jesus and you are giving account for your nasty judgmental words (towards people who worship the Father AND the Son), know that I forgive you.I will continue to worship all persons called theos in scripture that have dominion over all creation for ever and ever. Worry about all the other theos and who they are theos over if you want. What I know is they are not theos over me if they do not have dominion over all of creation for ever and ever.
@t8
Furthermore, a thought that God gave me today is for you:
You seem to have a great big problem with people who call Jesus, ‘God.’ These are Jesus’ words for those who had problems with that when He walked among men:
John 10
33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods? 35If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works: that you may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
The Pharisees equated the way Jesus was answering them with Him implying that He was a God type of being like the Father because He was claiming God was His own father. Jesus responded by comparing Himself with those that the Father called gods in the OT and Himself. He basically said that He is more deserving than they were and there is a difference between Him and them as theos. In John 10 the Pharisees wanted to hear Him plainly say that He was the Messiah. Jesus assured them that He was consecrated and sent by His Father. Calling Him “Father” and saying that He was one with the Father and telling them that He gives eternal life to His own sheep was a significant thing to hear for the Pharisees. They equated that with Jesus claiming to be the same type of being that the Father was as sons naturally are.
Oh that is funny. When it is convenient for you, you acknowledge that others are called theos and elohim. So we have some progress now. I told you that scripture mentions this.
As for your point that Jesus is more deserving of that title, well I have to agree. But note that he said in response that he was the son of God. That mihgt have something to do with the scripture being quoted that goes something like this.
“Ye are elohim, ye are all sons of the Most High God”.
Jesus is the son of the Most High God, so yes if they were called theos, then all the more he should be.
But they were not the one true Theos, and neither is Jesus. Theos is used in other ways just as elohim is. Even an earthquake is called elohim, and yet I never call earthquakes God. It just means it was an exceedingly great quake. I also do not call Judges Gods because they were called gods/theos. I differed here with @Mikeboll64 with this.
Just because Judas was called devil, it was not meant to be taken that one would say, Judas the Devil did this or that. And just because Judges were called theos, that was never meant to be taken to say something like, “Nicodemus the God did this…”. Likewise saying Jesus the God was never meant to be how we address him.
We are taught explicitly that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. People will deny that with all kinds of excuses such as: Jesus was a mere man. Jesus is God. Jesus was a deceiver. But I confess that he is the Lord because for us, there is one who is God, that is the Father. Likewise there is one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. God appointed Jesus as Lord in fact. I love the truth so I accept it and teach it. Yet I am opposed by those who teach strange doctrines and speak with forked tongue.
Someday when you are face to face with Jesus and you are giving account for your nasty judgmental words (towards people who worship the Father AND the Son), know that I forgive you.
You didn’t say this right. You missed out the part that Jesus is worshipped as God which he is most certainly not.
I agree that Jesus is worshipped, but as the son of God and the Lamb of God. See scripture. And the Father is clearly worshipped as God.
All glory to God and to the Lamb. We know who the lamb is. So who is God? Why he is the Father. Does this truth annoy you?
@t8
When you refer to Jesus in your writings you call Him a variety of things such as Lord, Lamb, Messiah, Son of God, etc. He is also called God but you shy away from that and I don’t.
Also, btw, I am not quick to point out that others are called elohim or theos but I don’t deny it. I just know they are not in the same ballpark, so to speak of the Father and the Son as given those titles and that ‘ballpark’ being that of the elohim who created those others called elohim. The Father and Son are the elohim that created and all others called elohim were created by the Father through the Son. You seem to group the Son as theos with the group of the created beings and not the group of creator beings. I will give you a couple of following posts to help you understand this by what Ireneaus says about the matter. Ireneaus lived long before the Council of Nicea. Ireneaus’ writings are estimated to have been written around 175-185 A.D.
@t8
From Ireneaus to help you realize about those who are called God/god:
Chapter VI—The Holy Ghost, throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, made mention of no other God or Lord, save him who is the true God.
1. Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”3329 Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.”3330 For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites 419 for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.”3331 For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God—both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: “God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.”3332 He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: “The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.”3333 Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, “God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;”3334 that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, “I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.”3335 But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.”3336 To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the “adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.”3337
2. Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, “I am that I am. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;”3338 and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, “I am come down to deliver this people.”3339 For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself —He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father.—As also Esaias says, “I too am witness,” he declares, “saith the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am.”3340
3. When, however, the Scripture terms them [gods] which are no gods, it does not, as I have already remarked, declare them as gods in every sense, but with a certain addition and signification, by which they are shown to be no gods at all. As with David: “The gods of the heathen are idols of demons;”3341 and, “Ye shall not follow other gods.”3342 For in that he says “the gods of the heathen”—but the heathen are ignorant of the true God—and calls them “other gods,” he bars their claim [to be looked upon] as gods at all. But as to what they are in their own person, he speaks concerning them; “for they are,” he says, “the idols of demons.” And Esaias: “Let them be confounded, all who blaspheme God, and carve useless things;3343 even I am witness, saith God.”3344 He removes them from [the category of] gods, but he makes use of the word alone, for this [purpose], that we may know of whom he speaks. Jeremiah also says the same: “The gods that have not made the heavens and earth, let them perish from the earth which is under the heaven.”3345 For, from the fact of his having subjoined their destruction, he shows them to be no gods at all. Elias, too, when all Israel was assembled at Mount Carmel, wishing to turn them from idolatry, says to them, “How long halt ye between two opinions?3346 If the Lord be God,3347 follow Him.”3348 And again, at the burnt-offering, he thus addresses the idolatrous priests: “Ye shall call upon the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord my God; and the Lord that will hearken by fire,3349 He is God.” Now, from the fact of the prophet having said these words, he proves that these gods which were reputed so among those men, are no gods at all. He directed them to that God upon whom he believed, and who was truly God; whom invoking, he exclaimed, “Lord God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hear me to-day, and let all this people know that Thou art the God of Israel.”3350
4. Wherefore I do also call upon thee, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.
420 5. And the Apostle Paul also, saying, “For though ye have served them which are no gods; ye now know God, or rather, are known of God,”3351 has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God. And again, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.”3352 He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, that is, idols. For the Father of all is called God, and is so; and Antichrist shall be lifted up, not above Him, but above those which are indeed called gods, but are not. And Paul himself says that this is true: “We know that an idol is nothing, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”3353 For he has made a distinction, and separated those which are indeed called gods, but which are none, from the one God the Father, from whom are all things, and, he has confessed in the most decided manner in his own person, one Lord Jesus Christ. But in this [clause], “whether in heaven or in earth,” he does not speak of the formers of the world, as these [teachers] expound it; but his meaning is similar to that of Moses, when it is said, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any image for God, of whatsoever things are in heaven above, whatsoever in the earth beneath, and whatsoever in the waters under the earth.”3354 And he does thus explain what are meant by the things in heaven: “Lest when,” he says, “looking towards heaven, and observing the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the ornament of heaven, falling into error, thou shouldest adore and serve them.”3355 And Moses himself, being a man of God, was indeed given as a god before Pharaoh;3356 but he is not properly termed Lord, nor is called God by the prophets, but is spoken of by the Spirit as “Moses, the faithful minister and servant of God,”3357 which also he was.
@t8
Regarding who is being referred to as the “theos of this world”, you are also confused as you will read here, according to Irenaeus. This should help clarify as to who the God being referred to is-the true God, not satan as you believe and give credit to as being the god of this world.Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence.
1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.
2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: “Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom 421 the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.” For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.viii.html
Good luck with this, I know it is going to test your reading comprehension skills but maybe if you take it slowly… 🙂
Those above two posts should be enough to show you that I am not alone in my understanding of two who are called LORD. I am in the good company of many of the early church fathers in my doctrine whereas you are lacking support there as you deny that Jesus is called LORD.
When you refer to Jesus in your writings you call Him a variety of things such as Lord, Lamb, Messiah, Son of God, etc. He is also called God but you shy away from that and I don’t.
Here is the truth. Theos is applied to the Father predominantly. Then I think idols and other false gods, then others who are legitimately describes as theos. My confession with who the Father is and who Christ is reflects the same weighting of usage. I predominantly teach that the Father is the only true God while very occasionally may mention that Jesus is the nighty el as written in Isaiah.
Same with Judas, I would predominantly describe him as a man, but in an ordinary world may refer to him as having the nature of the devil occasionally. However, due to the subjects that are rigorously debated here, I admit to having overly described him as ‘devil’ for the sake of demonstrating in what fashion others can be called theos or elohim in a legitimate sense outside of the only true God.
Yourself on the other-hand describes Jesus as predominantly God, occasionally the Father, and I read recently that you admitted to others being called theos for the first time (from what I can remember and have read). Taking the whole of scripture into account, you clearly take one or two verses to promote a doctrine and largely ignore the rest which do not testify of your view.
What this shows is your view is unbalanced and it is so because of your proud association with your own doctrine which you stubbornly refuse to let go. But the Lord Jesus Christ said the very thing you disagree with and debate me over. Really, your argument is with the Lord Jesus Christ.
“I pray that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” .
Satan is called the “the god of this world”, the “the prince of this world”, “the prince of the power of the air”. We are warned that the world is our enemy. If you say that the YHWH is the god of this world, then you blaspheme God because he told us not to love the things of this world and that the world will be judged for the evil it has committed. We are actually in the world but not of it. We are not of it because we are of YHWH. Saying that YHWH is the God of this world is saying that he sits in the place of Satan. May God forgive your pride and forced interpretations on behalf of your pride in your own doctrine.
@KangarooJack also made this same error and for the same reason. He had a doctrine that he needed to defend and with Satan as the god of this age, it was a thorn in his side as it is with you.@t8
you said
Yourself on the other-hand describes Jesus as predominantly God, occasionally the Father, and I read recently that you admitted to others being called theos for the first time (from what I can remember and have read). Taking the whole of scripture into account, you clearly take one or two verses to promote a doctrine and largely ignore the rest which do not testify of your view.
If I am here to help people see why Christians the world over call Jesus ‘God’ then my discussions here are naturally going to point out that, in scriptures, He is called ‘God.’ I do not have to turn people’s attention to verses that show that He is called ‘Lord’ or ‘the Son of God’ because the people here, in general, have no problem calling Jesus by those titles. That is why you see me predominantly pointing out that Jesus is described as “God” in scriptures. Get it?
Also, I have never denied that others are called ‘theos.’ Since they are not a theos that created the world or saves the world, and since they are created as opposed to ‘creator,’ I do not associate them with the Father as a theos or the Son as a theos. Why go on and on about a created theos that can not save? For us, two who are called ‘theos’ are of the creator kind and savior kind. I see both of them as also called Yahweh. You have never admitted that there are two persons who are called Yahweh. Here lies a big difference. You in fact deny that Jesus is called Yahweh in the OT.
How different would your posts be if you believed that 2 Peter actually was identifying Jesus as the Yahweh of hosts from Isaiah 8?? That is what it boils down to, t8, I believe that two persons are called Yahweh, one of them is the Word of the other and Son of the other. Don’t you see that I am being true to my beliefs by exalting Jesus as God since I believe He is also Yahweh?
Gen 19:24
Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky.Please note, t8, that one chapter before this, there was someone called Yahweh appearing as a man and speaking face to face with Abraham about what He was going to do. This is what He did: He rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky.
Kathi, you must be so confused about all the scriptures that point to their being one God, the Father and only he is the one true God. Instead you hinge your doctrine on inference where you need to stretch some scriptures to support your view.
But those who believe that there is one God the Father and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord do not have to engage in Yoga or stretching exercises with scripture. We can read them as they are. All the scriptures that Trinitarians use and you also use have clear explanations as to what they really mean.
You have failed to convince me that Jesus is the one true God, therefore I continue to call him my Lord and continue to call my Father and Jesus Father, God.
@t8
I am actually trying to help you see that Jesus was an always existing part of the one true God…an offspring part. As offsprings typically are, Jesus is the same kind of being as His Father and therefore He is also perfect in every way. He also has dominion with the Father over all creation. If that isn’t a great definition of what true God would be, I don’t know what is.
I believe He is:
always existent
God the Father’s only true offspring
Perfect in every way
Creator with the Father
Savior of the church
YHWH of hosts as in Isaiah 8
God with God (the Father)
shares dominion with the Father over all creation. etc.So, given that is what I believe, isn’t it fitting that I would be equating Him with the Father in their type of being and position over creation?
Can you show me how Jesus can’t possibly be an always existent offspring part of the one true God?
I am actually trying to help you see that Jesus was an always existing part of the one true God…an offspring part. As offsprings typically are, Jesus is the same kind of being as His Father and therefore He is also perfect in every way. He also has dominion with the Father over all creation. If that isn’t a great definition of what true God would be, I don’t know what is.
Unfortunately for your view, it is not written anywhere that Jesus is an eternal offshoot of God. Trying to picture that reminds me of the beast with seven heads and one body. God does not have a head growing out of him or an eternal extension called a son. Rather Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. The latter is what I believe. He was begotten from God and sits at the right hand of God as another, who is the first-born of all creation.
Further, God is not an offspring ever. Offsprings are images. God is not an image or an offspring ever.
Additionally, being perfect in all your ways is no full qualification of being God. God’s creation was once perfect too and so was this person:
You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.
Some would argue that you could put Satan in your qualification before he sinned. He is called a god. He was perfect in all his ways, (till iniquity was found in him). He was an offspring of God, a spirit from the Father of spirits.
@t8
you said:it is not written anywhere that Jesus is an eternal offshoot of God.
I didn’t write that either. Why did you mention the word ‘offshoot’ instead of the word I used-“offspring?” That is a good example of poor reading comprehension or a typo or intentional twisting of words. Which was it, t8?
you also said:
Further, God is not an offspring ever. Offsprings are images. God is not an image or an offspring ever.
Well, God the Father is not an offspring ever and God the Father is not an image ever BUT God as the Son IS an offspring and an image of God the Father.
you furthermore said:
Trying to picture that reminds me of the beast with seven heads and one body. God does not have a head growing out of him or an eternal extension called a son.
Perhaps you need to retake a Biology course if an offspring within a parent looks like a head growing out of the parent or an eternal extension. An offspring is certainly a part of a pregnant woman before birth and after birth. Not as you poorly described though. You really should seek more understanding if what you read seems outlandish. OR try reading with an open mind and a spirit for understanding in the first place…that should help you a lot and save you time and patience in the process!
It is really getting old having to correct you all the time, t8. I hope to be able to have the patience to do so in order for you to at least question your lack of understanding of what a true son of a perfect eternal God would be. You continue to deny the Son of God of His eternal existence within the Father before He was begotten from the Father. 1 John 1 tells us that He was the ‘eternal’ life which was with the Father in the beginning.
I didn’t write that either. Why did you mention the word ‘offshoot’ instead of the word I used-“offspring?”
Because if someone is eternally generated by another, then he is attached and is an offshoot that remains attached to the source. But the Word was with God. Jesus was begotten not eternally generated from a source. Further to come from a source, means you are not the source. God is the source and he is the Father of all spirits. Jesus is not his own father and nor is he eternally generated. You don’t see that language or description in scripture so I do not believe your words. Your words are unreliable.
Well, God the Father is not an offspring ever and God the Father is not an image ever BUT God as the Son IS an offspring and an image of God the Father.
Yes he is the image of the Father. But scripture says he is the image of the invisible God. That God is the Father as you have testified in your quote. So if he is the image of the Father, then you have to concede that he is the image of God and not God himself who is the source.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
