The Trinity Doctrine

[david]

Quote

Interesting theory David, but there is a critical problem for you: You have already affirmed that YHWH is the “First and the Last”, citing this, among many verses, as being spoken by the Father of Yahshua:

Is 1:18, I believe you are resposible for many fallacies in this post. I'm not going to list them. You can find them yourself.
This statement above struck me as odd, considering what you had said here:

Quote

Is YHWH only the Almighty? Or only the Most High?

Apparently, you believe that words can apply to MORE THAN ONE PERSON. Right? The words translated “most high” (‛el·yohn) applies to many things and people.

Quote

The Messianic King, the Greater David, as above the other earthly kings (Ps 89:20, 27), the place above the nations promised to Israel (De 26:18, 19), the topmost basket (Ge 40:17), the upper gate (2Ki 15:35), the upper pool (2Ki 18:17), the upper courtyard (Jer 36:10), the uppermost story (Eze 41:7), the uppermost dining rooms (Eze 42:5), Upper Beth-horon (Jos 16:5), and the upper source of the waters of Gihon (2Ch 32:30). These uses illustrate that ‛el·yohn′ denotes position rather than power.

–Insight, vol2, page 441

You freely believe that titles such as this apply to more than one. And the word “most high” does.
Yet for some weird reason, when it comes to words like “first” and “last,” these can only apply to one? Because that's not consistent. Is it?

I feel almost embarressed for you, in having to point certain things out. I had commited so many fallacies in what you took to be my logical argument. But as someone who who knows these things, and probably better than anyone, you should know better.

I had said this:

“Is 1:18, I can't help but wonder how what you posted proves in any way that Jesus Christ is “plainly claimed to be God.”

Your reply:

“If I showed you a verse where Yahshua unmistakably identifies Himself as “The Almighty” would you argue that Yahshua wasn’t claiming to be God? I think not. On second thought you undoubtedly would, although you would have no grounds to do so. Tell me David what’s the difference between “First and Last“ (or Alpha and Omega) and “Almighty“?? Both are explicitly divine names, aren't they?

I would have hoped that after quoting me saying that, you'd try to prove or back up what you said. Instead, you question me. You say: “Tell me David what’s the difference between “First and Last“ (or Alpha and Omega) and “Almighty“?? Both are explicitly divine names, aren't they?” First, they are not really names, as we often think of names. Titles, maybe. Not personal names, for sure. The word “mighty” in itself isn't a title for anyone specific, as anyone can be mighty. Paul, you're “smart.” Smart, isn't a title.
Notice something paul. It doesn't say that he is “first of everything, first of the universe, or anything like that. Does it? Well, does it? Looking at the context of those verses AND other ones that speak of the first and last in Revelation, it's odd how it seems to explain what it means.
What allows you to insert your own interpretation?

As I said and as you quoted me:
Of course, these scriptures only say that he is the first and the last.
To this, your responce:
“Yes they do…although I wonder how YHWH feels about you using the words “only” and “First and Last” in the same sentence. Is YHWH only the Almighty? Or only the Most High? It's curious how you intuitively muster enthusiasm for The Father, as apposed to the Son, when they are presented in an identical fashion in scripture. It appears that in your earnest attempt to defend what you believe is the true God, to delineate Him from the Son (in respect to His essence of being), you, in relative terms, cast aside Yahshua, assigning Him tempered honour and respect, which, of course, is in marked contrast to the doxology used by the NT writers. But your knee will bow too David.“
Yes, I'm sorry. I used the word “only.” But of course, that word can be used in more than one way. I believe you are committing another fallacy here. I have a 106 page file filled with lots of fallacies. I don't feel like finding this one. I'm sure you know what it is anyway. And since at this point, I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone but you, I don't feel a need to cite the name of something you know, or should know.
What I was saying was this this scripture “only” says what it says and doesn't say what you add. I believe that is a correct use of the term. I'm not saying God or Christ are “only” anything. I'm saying that “THESE SCRPTURES ONLY SAY” that, and don't say what you add. You are twisting my thoughts and in an obviously bad unhonourable way.
Bringing up this whole topic of “only” in itself is a fallacy and an obvious one.

Moving on, I had said:

Jesus is called apostle. Jesus apostles are called apostles. They are not the same. Yet the word applies to both. What does it prove?
Your response, was to falsely claim:
Non sequitur. The word “apostle” is not a divine name.

You wrongly and falsely accuse me of using the word “only” with reference to what the scriptures say, and yet you say the above?

[/QUOTE]“A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·po′sto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Heb 3:1; compare Mt 10:40; 15:24; Lu 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; Joh 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was sent forth by God as his appointed and commissioned representative.

–Insight, vol 1, page 127

If the word “apostle” is not a divine name, does that mean Jesus is not divine? I must be confused by what you mean by divine name. I personally, don't consider any of these to be names, but rather titles. Yet, if you consider “first and last” to be a name, why not “apostle,” a word that is applied to Jesus? And yet, you say it is not a divine name. You are guilty of what you yourself falsely accused me of.

You next say:
Okay, let’s look…
…..
Interesting theory David, but there is a critical problem for you:

You have already affirmed that YHWH is the “First and the Last”, citing this, among many verses, as being spoken by the Father of Yahshua:

Revelation 22:13 – “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

I'm sorry, where did I affirm this? If I did, it was a mistake. But I don't think I did. Words can apply to more than one. You yourself believe this and argue it yourself with the words “Almighty” and “most high.”
Yet, for some reason, here it doesn't apply. Why? What is it truly based on?
You'll notice, paul, that once again, my interpretation is based on what the scriptures actually say in that verse and the verse following it and a statement made earlier in that same chapter of Revelation (1:5) and several other scriptures that speak similarly about Jesus.
The words “first and last” are common ones. We have already established that titles such as “lord,” “a
postle” etc can apply to different ones without them being the same one. If the word “apostle” fits Jesus in a certain respect, then he can rightly be called so, and is. If Jesus is the first and the last in certain respects, then those words can and are applied to him and this in no way neccessitates him being the same as His Father, who is also first and last in another respect. And you can't prove otherwise.

You next say:
So its evident that you are perfectly happy to accept that “First and Last” is a title of deity when applied to the father,
It is a title or phrase used with reference to Jehovah in certain places and Jesus in other respects. Just to accept that it applies to the Father does not mean it cannot apply to the son. We've prove this. See above.

Paul:
So its evident that you are perfectly happy to accept that “First and Last” is a title of deity when applied to the father, but insist that its not that case with the Son.
I simply see them as words. Words that mean what they normally mean. T8 was the first moderator on here…probably. And he will (possibly) be the last. [Here's here for the long haul.] Nick is the first and the last to tell you anything. He loves getting the last word in, even when it doesn't apply or you agree with him.
Does this in any way prove they are the same? No. Not in the least. And especially, if we were to specifically be told the manner in which Nick was the first and last, as those verses do of Jesus. See the context of all those verses.

I can't believe you said you considered this to be one of your strongest proofs.

You treat the appellation as a unit when it’s the Father but, without any justification (other than your Watchtower presupposition), break it down to what you perceive as it’s individual components when the Son identifies Himself in like manner.
When someone can't defend their own beliefs, they attack another person's beliefs, and often, falsely. If you search “first and last” in the watchtower index, you won't find that that expression is there, unlike “Almighty,” “lord,” God,” etc. You'd have to look under other headings. They are just words that have meaning. We all understand what the word “first” and “last” means. Even if they were considered a name, like “apostle” or “king” or “lord” or whatever, it doens't mean in any way that these words can't be applied to both in different respects.

Do you not see an inconsistency here? I can.
I see inconsistencies running through your words. Yes. But if I have said somewhere that “first and last” is a title when it applies to Jehovah and they are just words when applied to Jesus, please at least show me where I said this. But again, if I did, what does it prove?

Paul next says:
Your interpretation demonstrates the desperate measures some are driven to in attempting to explain away a blatant claim of deity by Yahshua. It might even be the ultimate exemplar.
I can't believe this! You have yet to demonstrate in any way any reason to believe anything you say regarding this, and I am the one stretching? ? ?
I have multiple scriptures and actually consider the context of those verses and what they actually say. Given that you haven't proved anything yet, your statement is meaningless.

You next quote me as saying:
But what you say about those scriptures plainly showing Jesus claiming to be God, that's just not in those scriptures.

To which you reply:
Assuming that you acknowledge that the “Lord of Hosts” is the only true God, does YHWH plainly claim to be the “God” in this verse?:

Isaiah 44:6 – “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

If not, what exactly does YHWH mean by the application of descriptive “First and Last”?

Is 1:18, he means what you think he means. Obviously, being God Almighty, he would be distinguished in many ways, one of which is the fact that he will always be, always has been, etc. So those words apply, first, last.
He didn't copywrite them for himself. Those words can be applied in many different ways to many different ones.
Since Jesus, our Lord, is also distinguished in many respects, he too fits those words, but in a different sense. IN THE SENSE SHOWN IN THE NEXT VERSE!.

David.

Ps. I was really hoping you'd have more.

[music4two]

WJ, you state —
Do you believe Jesus is the Word/God in the flesh?
You would say no Jesus is not God.

My response is long. I hope you will think on it. there is no anger in my heart in this response.

What I would say is ask you to clarify your question. What do you say is the definition of “word” as used in John 1. If you say it is literally Jesus and therefore proves He is God, I would ask you why when over 95% of the times logos is used in scripture it means statement or expression of a thought/idea/intention. I would ask why you chose to ignor the primary definition as listed in every language and biblical dictionary I have ever seen (and that is quite a few)
I would ask why in pevious posts you admit you do not know why John used the term Logos and yet you propose to teach what it means.
I would ask what purpose is your definition outside of proving your doctrine. What does it do to help me be like Christ?

As to my definition of Logos? —–
I have included Hebrew and Greek language proofs and you reject them.
I have included proof from biblical dictionaries and you reject them.
I have included proof from language dictionaries and you reject them.
I show you how understanding the way in which Hebrews viewed those particular terms, concepts and verses and you reject it.

When I ask why you reject it you say you just want to use scripture. I say OK fine. Here you go. —–

I include scriptural cross references where Logos is used proving the overwhelming 95% agreement with my definition and you reject it.

I show you from a functional standpoint how Jesus as the expression of God’s plan, purpose or intentions is fullfilled in Christ, making Him the perfect example and you not only reject it but offer no functional proof to support your definition.

If you reject the meaning of Greek words, If you reject the meaning of Hebrew words, If you reject the belief that Hebrew culture was far different then our culture and refuse to see it’s impact on what they wrote or the functionality of what you teach, then you cannot claim any true understanding of scripture.

God has very specific attributes.
He is a Spirit.
He is eternal and cannot die.
He is allknowing.
He is omnipresent.
He is invisible.
He is all powerfull.
He cannot be tempted
He cannot fail
He cannot sin
And the one that impacts all others is His immutability. He cannot change what or who He is. His deity is predicated upon all of these atributes. To give any of them up would counteract or take away from His deity and nature. It is simply impossibe for a God to give up any of these attributes and be the God of the bible.

I do not say this in malice, but If you teach a God that is in any way contrary to these attributes, then you are not teaching the Judeo-Christian God, spoken of in scripture. That includes teaching that God can become a man or be a man and yet remain God. It also includes a man literally becoming God.

I ask you if you believe Jesus is a man? You say yes and I question that answer. You may believe that in your head but the truth is that if you believe in a dual natured Christ then you do not believe in a human Christ. Humanity does not have a dual nature.
To teach that attributes like temptability and non-temptability, failability and non-failability can coexist in one being due to a dual nature, is the height of mystiscism.
To teach that this dual nature is something that must be revealed to you is the height of gnostiscism.
To teach that Jesus must be a God to counteract him being of the lower Earthly realm is the height of dualism.
If you teach a dual-natured Christ and at the same time teach that we are to be like him, then you teach a disfunctional doctrine with no basis in reality or reason.
If you say the spirit/breath of God dwelt in Jesus, I agree. The same Spirit/breath of God dwells in me and you. We are not Gods?
If you say Jesus is;
the expresion of God,
the only begotten son of God,
the messiah,
the firstfruits of those raised from the dead,
the example for mankind,
sinless,
perfect,
son of David,
human,
a ptophet
heir to the thrown of God
bridegroom of the church,
blood sacrifice
anointed one,
saviour,
redeemer,
our brother
I can agree with all of these and more, but none of them require him to be a God. So why must Jesus be God?

I understand why it is so difficult to let go of the trinity. I also understand why it is so hard to see from a Hebrew standpoint. I know how difficult it is to not filter scripture through what we already believe. I see your quality and your heart for God. I believe that in the heart we both operate toward Jesus in the same way. It is with the head that we differ. Though God judges by the heart, our head can deter us from having all that God has for us.

It does not matter what either of us believe we can prove from scripture. What is important is the teachings we draw from those proofs.

If we teach something that missrepresents the character, attributes or nature of God, then there is a problem. The Hebrews see this as taking God’s name/character in vain.

The plan of God is relatively simple. All of creation was made for man. God’s desire is to have sons and daughters that will learn wisdom of life from him and become like him in character. Simply put, He desires, as our father, to be one with perfected humanity. For this purpose God has revealed Himself and taught us though the ages in his creation, the temple, prophets and miracles. Finally, by way of compleat example for us, He joins with a human woman to produce His human son. A human son that He personally teaches. (12 years old teaching in the temple?) A human son that grows in wisdom and stature with God and man. A human son that learns obediance and is perfected by what He suffered. A human son that could be tempted and could have failed. A human son because to build our faith and be a perfect example His son must be like us in all ways. A human son that was mortal and ultimately showed love unto death.
A human son as an example of His fullfilled plan for us. A human son to prove to the accuser of the brethren that even though the first human Adam failed, God’s creation of humanity was not faulty and would altimately win. To prove that God’s plan to have perfected humainty would work. He started out with a plan, gave perfect example of the fullfillment of that plan in his only begotten son, and will, through that son, compleat his plan for the rest of humanity.

All teaching/doctrine must work to help bring about the compleation of the above plan of God. Anything else is at best a waste of time and at worst working against God.

I know WJ that you love God.
I too worship Jesus. I give unto Him real worship which is to honor, respect and praise someone of authority, power or position. He is king of all kings. He is my master and my teacher. He has had all power in heaven and Earth given to Him by God. He has been appointed as Judge by God.
I give him respect and honor because of what He has accomplished. He actually did it! He lived a sinless life without picking up the knowledge of good and evil as Adam did. Nor did He seek equality with God as Adam did. Even though He was in position as a son and had full dominion over the Earth, He did not use it for his own gain. He humbled himself from His position of dominion over the Earth and the position of all authority given him by God, and operated in servitude to God and His brothers. He learned and taught wisdom from his father, God. He correctly operated one of His callings as a prophet and spoke first person the words of God Himself. He never seperated Himself from God by way of sin and attained a oneness of character, purpose and desire with God. He was perfected by what he suffered. He had human needs and desires for life and it’s necessities, but would not sell out any of the above things even
unto death. WOW AWESOME!!!!!! I love Him because even though His position as a son of God gave Him authority to call down legions of angels to save Himself. He chose to die for my sake.

For all of the above reasons Jesus has all power in heaven and Earth. He sits upon the thrown of heaven. This right was given Him by the Almighty God YHWH Elohyim.
I pray to Jesus because He is the mediator between me and God.
I ask his council, because no matter what is at the core of my problems, he has already been tested and overcome it. This makes him my perfect example and guide through life, because He is a man just like me and actually did it!
None of the above things Jesus accomplished require a God to fullfill them. To teach that a God’s death (like God could die) on the cross was required to forgive our sins is a major assumption. As you posted YHWH can do anything. In fact if God wanted, He could have just forgiven everyone without a blood sacrifice at all. God chose to use the sacrifice of one of his human sons. In fact specifically His perfect only begotten son. None of this requires deity on Jesus’ part.

In fact, there are no functional reasons why Jesus needs to be God, but there are multitudes of reasons why He must be Human.

[david]

On page 540 of this thread, Is 1:18 stated:

The 'First and Last', 'Alpha and Omega' verses are the strongest possible proof that Yahshua claimed to be God (YHWH), as this is a title that YHWH exclusively reserves for Himself.
(Bold, italics and underlining added for emphasis.)

I found this statement very interesting. If Is 1:18 feels this is “the strongest possible proof” that Jesus claimed to be Jehovah, I think it deserves our attention.

Let's look at it.

shall we?

[david]

First, I am impelled to ask where Jehovah “exclusively reserves” this title “for Himself.”
Of course, we find the words “the first and the last” several times in the Bible.

2 Chronicles 9:29 (King James Version)
“Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?”

See also 2 chron 12:15; 16:11; 20:34; 25:26; 28:26; 35:27 where ‘the first and the last’ or “first and last” occur several times.

As far as I can tell, there is nowhere where “YHWH exclusively reserves” those words “for himself.”
If there is such a scripture that says: ‘I Jehovah exclusively reserve the phrase ‘first and last’ for myself,’ then that would be helpful.

[charity]

Quote (david @ Jan. 24 2007,00:11)

On page 540 of this thread, Is 1:18 stated: The 'First and Last', 'Alpha and Omega' verses are the strongest possible proof that Yahshua claimed to be God (YHWH), as this is a title that YHWH exclusively reserves for Himself. (Bold, italics and underlining added for emphasis.) I found this statement very interesting.  If Is 1:18 feels this is “the strongest possible proof” that Jesus claimed to be Jehovah, I think it deserves our attention. Let's look at it. shall we?

May we include?

The words

Who was and is and shall come; as the first and last

Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Rev 4:9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,

Rev 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and *cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

looks like they repented sorta thing?? confused understanding who the creater is even

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

One had a face like a man?
Rev 4:7 And the first beast [was] like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast [was] like a flying eagle.

may seem off subject but ALSO MAYBE NOT?

[Worshipping Jesus]

How about the words of the Father and Son….

Isa 44:6
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 48:12
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Rev 1:11
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Rev 1:17
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

Rev 2:8
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Rev 2:19
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.

Rev 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Rev 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Heb 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Truly Jesus is God, One with the Father and the Spirit!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

ooks like they repented sorta thing?? confused understanding who the creater is even

Charity

It would be confusing for those who dont know the truth or reject the pure truth of the scriptures!

[charity]

WJ
Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

Well that makes a trinity of …
King David; CHRIST the redeemer and God?

MY LORD THE King was apparently their address, standing for God as the earthy God;
1Ki 1:20 And thou, my lord, O king, the eyes of all Israel [are] upon thee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him.

1Ki 1:47 And moreover the king's servants came to bless* our lord king David*, saying, God make the name of Solomon better than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne. And the king bowed himself upon the bed.

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God moves from beginning to end using vessels on earth but yet not one appears to all him?

[charity]

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

Well that makes a trinity of …
King David; CHRIST the redeemer ;and God?

Stupid yer..well.. We Have the Father David and the Son and the Holy Spirit active in this scripture

Also we have the seed of David TRANSPORTED by the WORK OF the Holy Ghost to form a baby saviou again a trinity preformed

Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the
mystery of God, “and” of the Father,” and “of Christ;

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God. Well that makes a trinity of … King David; CHRIST the redeemer ;and God? Stupid yer..well.. We Have the Father David and the Son and the Holy Spirit active in this scripture Also we have the seed of David TRANSPORTED by the WORK OF the Holy Ghost to form a baby saviou again a trinity preformed Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, “and” of the Father,” and “of Christ;

Charity

Tell me.  Is King David the First and the Last and the Lord of Host, YHWH the God of Israel shown in this verse?

Isa 44:6
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
 

Pss 74:18
Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O LORD, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.

[david]

Quote

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Notice what this scripture says:
'I am the first and the last. And besides me there is no God.'

It doesn't say:
“I am the first and last and besides me there is no other first and last. Those words apply only to me.”

“In the original Hebrew at Isaiah 44:6, there is no definite article with the words “first” and “last,” whereas in Jesus’ description of himself in the original Greek at Revelation 1:17, the definite article is found. So, grammatically, Revelation 1:17 indicates a title, whereas Isaiah 44:6 describes Jehovah’s Godship.”–Revelation, It's Grand Climax at Hand, page 27, footnote

When Jesus is presented by the title: “the First and the Last,” this doesn't in any way prove he is claiming equality with Jehovah or that he is Jehovah. He is using a title properly given him by God.
In Isaiah, Jehovah was making a statement about His unique position as the true God. He is God eternal, and besides him there is indeed no God. (1 Timothy 1:17) In Revelation, Jesus is talking about his bestowed title, calling attention to his unique resurrection.–same source

Quote

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Look at this verse again. Or for the first time maybe.

Imagine someone said this true statement:
I am tall and wide and besides me no one weighs more.

Maybe this person is the tallest largest widest person on the planet and he does in fact weigh the most. (no one weighs more)
That does not mean that someone else can't be described as tall and wide.
WHAT IT DOES MEAN is that no one else can be described as weighing more.

How can we understand the expression: Besides me there is no God?
We know that the Bible uses the word God with reference to other mighty ones, angels, human judges of Israel, etc. Angels are not false gods.
Look at the scripture. Jehovah is the first and the last. There was no one before him and He will exist forever. He is described as the king of eternity in the Bible. In this sense, no one can be compared to him.

david

[charity]

I say

The Face of God may be rendered to a man favourable

Job 33:26 He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.

[charity]

Face to face even in angel form?

Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked [him], and said, Tell [me], I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Gen 32:31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.

[charity]

Many cases of THE I AM

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

ALSO God dose not sleep
vessle are deminished from the earth they sleep.

Christ prolonged his life???

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

[charity]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 24 2007,06:11)

Quote Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God. Well that makes a trinity of … King David; CHRIST the redeemer ;and God? Stupid yer..well.. We Have the Father David and the Son and the Holy Spirit active in this scripture Also we have the seed of David TRANSPORTED by the WORK OF the Holy Ghost to form a baby saviou again a trinity preformed Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, “and” of the Father,” and “of Christ; Charity Tell me.  Is King David the First and the Last and the Lord of Host, YHWH the God of Israel shown in this verse? Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.   Pss 74:18 Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O LORD, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.

To take it to my roots

I do not consider Michael the archangel to be God
but chosen and set over all of Mankind
If shall come in human form this dosenot desturb my thinking
As even satan can be transformed into a n angel of light

IN fact the whole of the angels have their spirits tested on earth…Amen I said it

for God can not have the same rumpus raket in heaven at the end of time

So also dose an Angel behold the face of God in heaven concerning your faithfulness on earth to search your heart till righteous is found; for nothing unrighteous may enter the New kingdom of God this time.

[music4two]

I find it very revealing that when a person asks the purpose or function of a doctrine/teaching everyone clams up.

Most do not want to hold to any proper rules of scriptural interpretation and even those that do will drop as soon as those rules touch on their God/Doctrine. No I did not mistype. For many their doctrine has become their God.
Arguing scripture without agreeing to some form of honest research principles is stupidity and a waste of time.

The most important principle is certainly the test of functionality.
Once a person has what they believe is correct in scripture, they have one finale test to do.
What does the teaching derived from your scripture study do to make you more like Christ and further God's plan for man?
If you cannot answer that or if you are honest and admit it does nothing then why are you wasting your time in fruitless debate.

[NickHassan]

Hi charity,
To a Michael thread?

[NickHassan]

Hi,
God did not send His son that they should worship him instead of Himself.
It is amazing that Satan has perverted the simple truths into obvious lies which men who do not know Him happily swallow.

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
You say
“I would have hoped that after quoting me saying that, you'd try to prove or back up what you said.  Instead, you question me.  You say: “Tell me David what’s the difference between “First and Last“ (or Alpha and Omega) and “Almighty“?? Both are explicitly divine names, aren't they?”  First, they are not really names, as we often think of names.  Titles, maybe.  Not personal names, for sure.  The word “mighty” in itself isn't a title for anyone specific, as anyone can be mighty.  Paul, you're “smart.”  Smart, isn't a title.  
Notice something paul.  It doesn't say that he is “first of everything, first of the universe, or anything like that.  Does it?  Well, does it?  Looking at the context of those “

This is a forum where members have the right to use other than personal names and privacy in this matter is their right.

Perhaps I have missed it but I do not recall this member that you have addressed by as Paul ever using a personal name for himself in this forum.

If he has not and you have obtained the name by other means do you have his permission to do so?

If not then you have seriously breached his rights and your behaviour is unacceptable.

[Cubes]

Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 24 2006,19:59)

I Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Seems to support the idea of Jesus being God in the flesh but also could be that God was manifested in the life of Jesus. Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. The Son seems to be called the everlasting Father this scripture would seem to be a problem for either side of the trinity argument. Is this a good translation?

Hi ST,

I am reading through this thread now having missed many posts so please bear w/ me if I repeat what has already been said.

I thought to respond to these two scriptures you cited.

[Author]

Posts