- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Is I.18,
God begat a Son. All other gods are created in my view through that son.We know very little about “the beginning”.
We know the Word was with God in the beginning. I suggest “the beginning” is before what is shown in Genesis and Genesis starts with ” in the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth..”
We do know something about the very initial part of this verse before the creation of earth from Job 38 4f
“Where were you when I founded the earth?…while the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of god shouted for joy”
So the sons of god existed prior to the formation of the earth.
I believe they are the so called gods.
Ps 977f
“Worship Him, all you gods……For you are the Lord most High over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods”These verses make no sense unless these gods exist and can worship our God.
Now we do not apply the theological measures of men to these contexts and say by definition
” a god is a divine being that is worshipped and does not worship.”
God can call anyone He likes whatever He likes and we must learn from Him surely.
Some of them made themselves into gods, such as Satan. But then again, the angels were referred to as gods as well, and Satan was once an angel (but he did not stand fast in the truth, the scripture says). He did however turn himself into the god of this system of things. Human judges of Israel were called gods. And rightly so, for they were mighty ones.
What does the word God mean in Hebrew? What are the meanings? Isn't the main definition: Mighty One?
The angels were created as mighty ones, or gods. But they are not mighty in the ultimate sense. They are not ever…no one is ever described as ALmighty, except for one: Jehovah.
While gods of various sorts are and can truly be called gods (mighty ones), only one is the Almighty one. The difference should be obvious.
48 times “Jehovah” is specifically referred to as Almighty. How many times is anyone else referred to as “Almighty” in the Bible?Of course, anything that's worshiped can be called a god.
Quote (david @ Nov. 15 2005,07:00) Some of them made themselves into gods, such as Satan. But then again, the angels were referred to as gods as well, and Satan was once an angel (but he did not stand fast in the truth, the scripture says). He did however turn himself into the god of this system of things. Human judges of Israel were called gods. And rightly so, for they were mighty ones. What does the word God mean in Hebrew? What are the meanings? Isn't the main definition: Mighty One?
The angels were created as mighty ones, or gods. But they are not mighty in the ultimate sense. They are not ever…no one is ever described as ALmighty, except for one: Jehovah.
While gods of various sorts are and can truly be called gods (mighty ones), only one is the Almighty one. The difference should be obvious.
48 times “Jehovah” is specifically referred to as Almighty. How many times is anyone else referred to as “Almighty” in the Bible?Of course, anything that's worshiped can be called a god.
Hi david,
Job 1-2 shows Satan among the sons of God. It seems reasonable to conclude he was there because he was one of them and despite his fall from grace, which was already manifest, he had not lost priveleges in the court of God.
[unless of course you declare it all to be an allegory like Lk 16]Jesus spoke in illustrations. Of course Job 1-2 is literal. There aren't numerous Bible principals that are being broken or conflicted by it being literal, unlike Luke 16.
Nick, I don't “declare” portions of the Bible as allegorical.
But if that part of the Bible were literal, it would directly conflict with many many many other scriptures and Bible principals–things that are clear. To take Luke 16 is literal would mean to abondon or ignore all we know about Jehovah's love and justice. It would mean ignoring what the Bible says about the soul, and what it says about the literal Abraham and where he went when he died. It would conflict with what we know about hades.Anyway, off topic.
No Cubes! It`s an ethical issue. Your ethics! You and your likes challange and then run away like little cowards. There are no rules with you and your like. I don`t mind the no rules parts, but be a man and stay in the ring!
Unfriginbelievable! T8, i mean little girly man! Do you think that we can`t percieve what your doing? Your an idiot by choice. You run away like the little coward that you are. You never, and i mean never deal with the articles[twit] in the debate at hand. LISTEN you! anyone with a mind knows what a dishonest little coward you are, pathetic! Run away little girly man, run away! Your slip is showing. Hey david hows the selling of wares for your kingdom? twit! did you read my links? everyone else has. More links to come, wait till you see them david.
Hi,
To accept trinity you have to go over the line drawn in 2 Jn 9
” Anyone who goes too far
and does not abide in the teaching of Christ,
does not have God;
the one who abides in the teaching,
he has both the Father and the Son”Quote (soxan @ Nov. 16 2005,00:25) No Cubes! It`s an ethical issue. Your ethics! You and your likes challange and then run away like little cowards. There are no rules with you and your like.I don`t mind the no rules parts, but be a man and stay in the ring!
Hi Soxan,We ran?
No rules?That's the problem. We like the rules and have got to play by the biblical rules. Would try to accommodate you if we can stick to scripture.
Quote (soxan @ Nov. 16 2005,05:20) Unfriginbelievable! T8, i mean little girly man! Do you think that we can`t percieve what your doing? Your an idiot by choice. You run away like the little coward that you are. You never, and i mean never deal with the articles[twit] in the debate at hand. LISTEN you! anyone with a mind knows what a dishonest little coward you are, pathetic! Run away little girly man, run away! Your slip is showing. Hey david hows the selling of wares for your kingdom? twit! did you read my links? everyone else has. More links to come, wait till you see them david.
Really, now Soxan.Soxan, mental retardation is nothing to be ashamed of. I should have figured it out sooner. My apologies.
Soxan, I will speak more slowly and clearly when talking to you from now on. It's ok. We all have our challenges. The trick is to r e a d what other people say, and to try to focus your mind and then the ticks (in your case, your bizarre outbursts of nothing) will perhaps be lessened.
If by some chance I'm wrong, please don't take this as an insult. It's just that you don't know that I've ever in my life sold a magazine. Yet you insist I did, despite me repeatedly correcting you. What am I left to conclude but you are disabled mentally?
Again, this is not meant as an insult. But how else could it possibly be explained? There is no other way, is there?
Soxan, mental retardation is nothing to be ashamed of. A combination of minerals, vitamins and a great deal of encouragment from everyone on this forum will help you.
Now that we know this, I think I'll be able to respond to you in a more suitable way. Are your parents around? Can I speak with them?Soxan, isn't it encouraging to know that God promises to restore obedient humans to perfect physical health in a righteous “new earth.” (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:3, 4)
It's a shame when such things happen, but repect yourself Soxan and know that things will get better.
david
Quote Soxan, mental retardation is nothing to be ashamed of. I should have figured it out sooner. My apologies. Soxan, I will speak more slowly and clearly when talking to you from now on. It's ok. We all have our challenges. The trick is to r e a d what other people say, and to try to focus your mind and then the ticks (in your case, your bizarre outbursts of nothing) will perhaps be lessened.
If by some chance I'm wrong, please don't take this as an insult. It's just that you don't know that I've ever in my life sold a magazine. Yet you insist I did, despite me repeatedly correcting you. What am I left to conclude but you are disabled mentally?
Again, this is not meant as an insult. But how else could it possibly be explained? There is no other way, is there?
Soxan, mental retardation is nothing to be ashamed of. A combination of minerals, vitamins and a great deal of encouragment from everyone on this forum will help you.
Now that we know this, I think I'll be able to respond to you in a more suitable way. Are your parents around? Can I speak with them?Soxan, isn't it encouraging to know that God promises to restore obedient humans to perfect physical health in a righteous “new earth.” (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:3, 4)
It's a shame when such things happen, but repect yourself Soxan and know that things will get better.
david
David,
These words are really only designed to insult and hurt Soxan and this will only antagonise him. I think you know that.Soxan,
I understand that the theology of some here upset you. The deity of Christ is a very emotive issue. The fact that you appear to get so wound up about it shows that you care about what people think about Him, and that's commendable. However, ive always found that it more effective to reason with people from the scriptures.Quote Soxan,
I understand that the theology of some here upset you. The deity of Christ is a very emotive issue. The fact that you appear to get so wound up about it shows that you care about what people think about Him, and that's commendable. However, ive always found that it more effective to reason with people from the scriptures.Soxan, what Is 1:18 is saying is that it is OK to be zealous but one should not be patronizing….that means “talking down.” (What I just did was an example of it, to help us understand. It was a joke.)
Simply standing at the other end of a room and screaming: “You're wrong! You're wrong! Twit!” helps no one, including the one doing the yelling.
And that's all he has. His yelling. Sadly, that's it.Is 1:18, my words to Soxan were not meant to insult. Perhaps exposing it was a mistake. But it's nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone tries their hardest. We should commend his zeal, as you have done.
Is 1:18, if I repeatedly accuse you of something that isn't at all true in the least, not even close to true (in no way true at all) and you repeatedly explain that it isn't true (something you would for sure know), yet I keep saying it's true, “you're a liar, it's true, you're a liar,” despite any evidence, what would you think of me?
I really have no choice but to believe the best of Soxan, and in this case, the best is simply that he is …. challenged….in some way.Soxan, there can be no healing until there has been acceptance.
Soxan, the sooner you accept your limitations, the sooner you will revise your expectations and begin working with yourself the way you are.
While denial is often instinctive, the longer denial persists, the longer we postpone coming to grips with, and working within the limits of, the ‘unforeseen occurrences that befall all men.’—Ecclesiastes 9:11.Oh, a joke – hilarious. Yes David, I can use sarcasm too, only mine is not as thinly veiled as yours.
No, I wasn't using sarcasm. I do sincerely believe he may be challenged.
How else would you expain his unrationality?
What I was saying was that that sentence was a joke: I said not to be patronizing and then I “talked down” to him (a joke) by explaining what patronizing meant. That was a joke, a play on words.
Soxan's condition is no joke. It is quite serious.Hi david,
What you more likely see is fear. Many sincere people fear that to step outside of orthodox thought is to risk the anger of God. They feel their shepherding has been given into the hands of theologians and teachers who are erudite and to dare challenge their longheld views is dangerous.
But true faith does allow personal berean scriptural study and nowhere does it say that there are any greater teachers than Christ and his apostles. Nowhere is denominational orthodoxy written as the safe path.
Jesus said “follow me”David i never called you mentally retarted because i don`t want to insult their intelligence. Called you idiot? yes! guilty as charged. Hey david i don`t use a revision of the bible as your religion does, with the help of Gerber the occultist. Fear, yes i fear for the souls of the innocent. Nick wish i could like you, but i can`t. T8 i should have saved most of my venting for you. David it doesn`t matter what subject you speak on about, its all full of crap as my links clearly reveal. If your not in the light then your in darkness. Lastly, Cubes your a coward! Divert, divert and divert some more. Pitifull really!
Hi Is 1:18.
Somehow we got off topic in that other thread. Let's move the conversation here.Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.”
In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?
(1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
