The Trinity Doctrine

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 02 2007,10:18)

[/quote] Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2007,09:26) [quote=Morningstar,Dec. 02 2007,09:01] Morning You said… Quote 1 John 3:2 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. If John isn't “exactly” sure, then I can't claim to be myself. John says we shall be in his likeness! Yeshua is the very essence of all that the Father is. Yeshua dwells in all. Yeshua is the creator of all. By him all things consist. Yeshua is “The image of God”. Without him was not any thing made that was made. By the Word of Yeshua all things are upheld! You said… Quote Is Jesus all those things “exactly”?  YHWH didnt always Know everything in the Old Testament. YHWH changed his mind on occasion throughout the Old Testament.  Jesus didn't know the day and hour of his return. Did any of your other gods come in the flesh. Yeshua took on the likeness of sinfull flesh. He is the LORD from heaven. The princes of this world didnt know him. The world was made by him and knew him not. Do you think Yeshua could be the creator of all things and not know all things. So obviously that has something to do with his manhood. There will never be another “Monogenes” Unique” Son of God. You said… Quote Is the Father the only eternal God who is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent? In a nut shell.  I don't know the exact details. Dont you think the Father would have told us there was another. In fact he did… Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and there is none else. Yet we know that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit took part in the creation of all things. We shall not be “Gods”.

You said…

Quote

Is that all John is saying is just in his “likeness?”  So we will look like Jesus physically?  Seriously!

I dont know what we will look like no more than you. But we will not be “Omnipresent, Omniscient, or Omnipotent. Only The Father, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit share these attributes.

You said…

Quote

The Father was well pleased to fully dwell within his son. Is Jesus himself all the Father is?  Or is the Father filling Him to that capacity?

Is there any being other than God that could contain all of God?

Have you given thought to what it really means when the scriptures says…

Col 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Yeshua is the exact representation of his essence, substance.

Not only that but Yeshua is so “One” with the Father that he fills all things, just like the Father.

Is there even the slightest implication found in scripture that says your so called “gods” even come close to that in nature?

You said…

Quote

I agree Jesus was the demiurge! The instrument of creation.

Sorry, Yeshua is not a demiurge!

He is the origin, the essence by which all things are created.

By him all things consist!  

You said…

Quote

Actually other Gods (sons of God) did come in the flesh. (Gen. 6:4, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude vs. 6)  But they are not “unique” like Jesus. Jesus is the Most High of the elohim, the other sons his companions.  The Father is Most High over all.

Please!!!

Gen 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

This scripture says “sons of God” not gods.

And what you are promoting here is contrary to the laws of reproduction the Lord set in at creation.

Still they are not shown here coming in the flesh. Ambiguous.

2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

No mention of the sons of God here. You are not saying “Angels” can come in the flesh are you? Thats what the JWs believe.

Can you give me one NT scripture where there is an Angel that is called a god, other than the false god satan?

The greek word is “aggelos” which means “messenger,

Its found 179 times translated “Angel” and seven times “messenger”. Not once are they called a “Theos”, god.

This is one of t8s contentions that the word “Theos” can be used for “Angels” (Aggelos) in the NT. Not so.

Sorry no “angels comming in the flesh”.

Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

There is that word “Aggelos” again.

Again, no coming in the flesh. No incarnation.

You said…

Quote

Yes I think it is possible that the Father worked through his unique son to create the world and the Son is not necessarily omnipotent like his Father.

Not neccesarily? Without him was not anything made that was made. How could that be if he didnt have all power.

You said…

Quote

Agreed, Jesus is forever the “unique” son of God. But we will be sons of God who are not unique as that word means referring to Jesus.  Jesus is the Firstborn and the demiurge. Isa 45:18 is talking about YHWH the son.  He is the lone elohim (son of El) who is creator.  The other sons of God did not have anything to do with creation.

So God the Father wasnt part of the creation?

See here is the problem. Hebrew scriptures clearly teach there was none other than God who made all things. He alone and by himself created all things. If Yeshua is not One God with the Father and the Spirit, then the Hebrew scriptures contradict the GT.

You said…

Quote

The bible disagrees and declares with will be gods, it directly says: 1) We will be elohim. (plural as gods)

This was the lie that the serpent told Eve.

“Ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil”.

Yes man has become gods unto themselves.

Paul says there is only “One God” all others are so-called gods.

You said…

Quote

2) We will have the morning star rise in us as Christ will give it to us. 3) We will rule and reign with him in a higher, judging position even over the angels. 4) We are to be transformed with the same Glory, Power and Authority the Father gave to Christ.

True. But none of this makes us gods.

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Why waste time with these philosophies?
Scripture does not teach trinity.
So why do you?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2007,12:01)

t8 Oh so you mean that if it does not have a definate article it cant be refering to the Father? Or if it does it is only refering to the Father? How about this one… 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Exactly the point WJ.

It is identifying the god of this age and not talking about the nature of the Most High God.

If it said “the God” and the description wasn't pointing to another god, then you would assume that it was talking about the Most High God.

The point is when you see “theos” or “elohim”, you should be wondering if it is identifying or talking about a quality, and if it is identifying then identifying who?

The Most High God?
The god of this age?
A false god?
Or what?

It is not enough to read theos and elohim and just assume that it is the most High God. Same goes for the word Adam/man and Devil/devil.

Scripture bears this out.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2007,12:15)

Yep! When I clicked on that “One Dot” three times it came up with three dots!

Yet not 3 dots but one dot.

Uh huh.

I've heard this before.

This one is God,
This one is God
This one is God
===
Not 3 Gods but one God
====

But really anyone can see in this that there are 3 Gods.

Let's take an apple.

Golden Delicious
Granny Smith
Braeburn

All 3 are apples, yet not 3 apples but one apple.

Yeah right!

Yes each one is an apple, but for crying out loud even a 2 year old knows 3 apples when he sees them.

Furthermore would you call 3 apples, it?
Or, those?

God is called a him, not “them”.

Oh but that is right it is a mystery.

A mystery so deep that not even scripture teaches it.

[Morningstar]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2007,19:19)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 02 2007,10:18) [/quote] Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2007,09:26) [quote=Morningstar,Dec. 02 2007,09:01] Morning You said… Quote 1 John 3:2 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. If John isn't “exactly” sure, then I can't claim to be myself. John says we shall be in his likeness! Yeshua is the very essence of all that the Father is. Yeshua dwells in all. Yeshua is the creator of all. By him all things consist. Yeshua is “The image of God”. Without him was not any thing made that was made. By the Word of Yeshua all things are upheld! You said… Quote Is Jesus all those things “exactly”?  YHWH didnt always Know everything in the Old Testament. YHWH changed his mind on occasion throughout the Old Testament.  Jesus didn't know the day and hour of his return. Did any of your other gods come in the flesh. Yeshua took on the likeness of sinfull flesh. He is the LORD from heaven. The princes of this world didnt know him. The world was made by him and knew him not. Do you think Yeshua could be the creator of all things and not know all things. So obviously that has something to do with his manhood. There will never be another “Monogenes” Unique” Son of God. You said… Quote Is the Father the only eternal God who is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent? In a nut shell.  I don't know the exact details. Dont you think the Father would have told us there was another. In fact he did… Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and there is none else. Yet we know that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit took part in the creation of all things. We shall not be “Gods”. You said… Quote Is that all John is saying is just in his “likeness?”  So we will look like Jesus physically?  Seriously! I dont know what we will look like no more than you. But we will not be “Omnipresent, Omniscient, or Omnipotent. Only The Father, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit share these attributes. You said… Quote The Father was well pleased to fully dwell within his son. Is Jesus himself all the Father is?  Or is the Father filling Him to that capacity? Is there any being other than God that could contain all of God? Have you given thought to what it really means when the scriptures says… Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Yeshua is the exact representation of his essence, substance. Not only that but Yeshua is so “One” with the Father that he fills all things, just like the Father. Is there even the slightest implication found in scripture that says your so called “gods” even come close to that in nature? You said… Quote I agree Jesus was the demiurge! The instrument of creation. Sorry, Yeshua is not a demiurge! He is the origin, the essence by which all things are created. By him all things consist!   You said… Quote Actually other Gods (sons of God) did come in the flesh. (Gen. 6:4, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude vs. 6)  But they are not “unique” like Jesus. Jesus is the Most High of the elohim, the other sons his companions.  The Father is Most High over all. Please!!! Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. This scripture says “sons of God” not gods. And what you are promoting here is contrary to the laws of reproduction the Lord set in at creation. Still they are not shown here coming in the flesh. Ambiguous. 2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; No mention of the sons of God here. You are not saying “Angels” can come in the flesh are you? Thats what the JWs believe. Can you give me one NT scripture where there is an Angel that is called a god, other than the false god satan? The greek word is “aggelos” which means “messenger, Its found 179 times translated “Angel” and seven times “messenger”. Not once are they called a “Theos”, god. This is one of t8s contentions that the word “Theos” can be used for “Angels” (Aggelos) in the NT. Not so. Sorry no “angels comming in the flesh”. Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. There is that word “Aggelos” again. Again, no coming in the flesh. No incarnation. You said… Not neccesarily? Without him was not anything made that was made. How could that be if he didnt have all power. You said… Quote Yes I think it is possible that the Father worked through his unique son to create the world and the Son is not necessarily omnipotent like his Father. Quote Agreed, Jesus is forever the “unique” son of God. But we will be sons of God who are not unique as that word means referring to Jesus.  Jesus is the Firstborn and the demiurge. Isa 45:18 is talking about YHWH the son.  He is the lone elohim (son of El) who is creator.  The other sons of God did not have anything to do with creation. So God the Father wasnt part of the creation? See here is the problem. Hebrew scriptures clearly teach there was none other than God who made all things. He alone and by himself created all things. If Yeshua is not One God with the Father and the Spirit, then the Hebrew scriptures contradict the GT. You said… Quote The bible disagrees and declares with will be gods, it directly says: 1) We will be elohim. (plural as gods) This was the lie that the serpent told Eve. “Ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil”. Yes man has become gods unto themselves. Paul says there is only “One God” all others are so-called gods. You said… Quote 2) We will have the morning star rise in us as Christ will give it to us. 3) We will rule and reign with him in a higher, judging position even over the angels. 4) We are to be transformed with the same Glory, Power and Authority the Father gave to Christ. True. But none of this makes us gods.

Psalms 82:6

THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT MEN!

Scholars know this. Those with religious agendas make up their own answers for this so that it does not mean the Fathers divine council of sons.

This is exactly who Jesus was saying he was. The Son given Israel as an inheritence.

The other sons of God (Jesus's Companions) were unfaithful and sentenced to die.

Psalm 82

Verses 1-5 God delivers his case against his disobedient sons who are not rightly ruling their allotted nations.

1 God presides over heaven’s court;
he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:
2 “How long will you hand down unjust decisions
by favoring the wicked?
3 “Give justice to the poor and the orphan;
uphold the rights of the oppressed and the destitute.
4 Rescue the poor and helpless;
deliver them from the grasp of evil people.
5 But these oppressors know nothing;
they are so ignorant!
They wander about in darkness,
while the whole world is shaken to the core.

Verse 6 God calls the angels / sons of God / Elohim gods!

6 I say, ‘You are gods;
you are all children of the Most High.

Verse 7 the sons of God are sentenced to death. Reminds me of Matthew 25:41
41″Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

7 But you will die like mere mortals
and fall like every other ruler.’”

In verse 8 the only good Son, the only good shepherd, Jesus, who loved righteousness and was raised to a higher position than his companions, is instructed to rise up and inherit all the nations.

8 Rise up, O God, and judge the earth,
for all the nations belong to you.
Comparison of John 10 and Psalm 82:

Jesus reply in Jn 10 makes far more sense if he is referring to
divine beings, because he is making the claim that he himself is divine. If he was merely referring to human judges, then he is simply calling himself a man. I don't think this is what the Gospel is trying to say. On the contrary, it is making the claim that Jesus is God.

Then what purpose does it serve to say that the “gods” (presuming they are men here) would die like mere men if they were always going to die as mere men? If it was always going to be the case, then why say “like mere men”?

No, in the case of Ps 82, the gods of the divine council are condemned to die like mere men because they fail to govern the earth properly. No one expects the gods to die as mere men, so their condemnation to die as mere men is quite telling. This Psalms calls for an end to henotheism with its national deities each ruling a particular domain, and calls for a new monotheism in which a single deity governs the entire earth. Notice that the scope isn't simply national Israel, but universal. The gods of the nations — not the judges of Israel — have failed to govern the world. Therefore God must needs sack this cabinet and assume autocratic control himself.

He gives all authority to the one son (son of God / Elohim) that is righteous and hated wickedness. Jesus!

Also, scholars KNOW that gensis 6:4 is talking about these sons of God as angelic-type beings coming to earth and creating hybrids, giants.

Please, honestly read this:

Jude

6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

It says out right “these angels indulged in sexual immorality just like sodom and gomorrah.”

Jude almost didn't make it into the canon for this very reason. It took about four hundred years after the death of Christ for “new” theories on what these verses meant to be created. Scripture did not determine their theology. They used their dogma to try and get this book out of the canon.

These histories and records are for the first time in history open for all of us on earth to read. We have been handed a lie about the nature of Christ.

Open your eyes!

[Morningstar]

WJ,

You said….

Is there any being other than God that could contain all of God?

Have you given thought to what it really means when the scriptures says…

Col 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Yeshua is the exact representation of his essence, substance.

Not only that but Yeshua is so “One” with the Father that he fills all things, just like the Father.

Is there even the slightest implication found in scripture that says your so called “gods” even come close to that in nature?

First, the other “gods” were not one with the Father. The Father sentenced them to death for poor stewardship. Only the good son and the good shepherd pleased the Father.

Secondly, we are also to become “one” with the Father. So we are at an empass here.

Which is it? Do we share the same glory or not? Do we become one with the Father or not?

If we do are we omnicient, omnipresent eternal God's ourselves? I dont think so and I don't think you think so either. MMMM whats this mean?

You Said….

Is there any other being than God that can contain all of God?

What is the definition of Fullness of deity? What is the definition of exact image?

Do they really mean what you are ascribing to them?

Because, we get made in the Image of Christ ourselves and become one with the Father as well.

Please think about this.

[Morningstar]

Here is something I found I thought interesting:

in Luke 4:9-11 it says:

9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10for it is written,

“'He will command his angels concerning you,
to guard you,'

11and

“'On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.'”

This is referencing the OT Psalm 91

9Because you have made the LORD your dwelling place—
the Most High, who is my refuge—
10 no evil shall be allowed to befall you,
no plague come near your tent.

11For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
12On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.

However, in the margin my bible gives an alternate translation. I believe this is an example of scholars knowing what something “actually” says but having to use theology as a guide to their translations.

My margin says OR-

For you, O Lord (YHWH), are my refuge! You have made the MOST HIGH (El Elyon) your dwelling place.

Wow, this is exactly what I have been saying.

I then look up this verse in Young's Literal translation and it says:

9(For Thou, O Jehovah, [art] my refuge,) The Most High [El Elyon] thou madest thy habitation.

10Evil happeneth not unto thee, And a plague cometh not near thy tent,

11For His messengers He chargeth for thee, To keep thee in all thy ways,

12On the hands they bear thee up, Lest thou smite against a stone thy foot

What do you guys think?

EL The Father

YHWH The Son

[Morningstar]

YHWH has made El Elyon his refuge!

We make YHWH our refuge!

God has a God!

[NickHassan]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 02 2007,23:10)

Here is something I found I thought interesting: in Luke 4:9-11 it says: 9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10for it is written,   “'He will command his angels concerning you,   to guard you,' 11and  “'On their hands they will bear you up,   lest you strike your foot against a stone.'” This is referencing the OT Psalm 91 9Because you have made the LORD your dwelling place—   the Most High, who is my refuge— 10 no evil shall be allowed to befall you,    no plague come near your tent. 11For he will command his angels concerning you   to guard you in all your ways. 12On their hands they will bear you up,   lest you strike your foot against a stone. However, in the margin my bible gives an alternate translation.  I believe this is an example of scholars knowing what something “actually” says but having to use theology as a guide to their translations. My margin says OR- For you, O Lord (YHWH), are my refuge! You have made the MOST HIGH (El Elyon) your dwelling place. Wow, this is exactly what I have been saying. I then look up this verse in Young's Literal translation and it says: 9(For Thou, O Jehovah, [art] my refuge,) The Most High [El Elyon] thou madest thy habitation. 10Evil happeneth not unto thee, And a plague cometh not near thy tent, 11For His messengers He chargeth for thee, To keep thee in all thy ways, 12On the hands they bear thee up, Lest thou smite against a stone thy foot What do you guys think? EL The Father YHWH The Son

Hi MS,
Almighty God, the awesome Father of Jesus and all His sons, is the One Who reached out to disinherited and lost man and said
“I AM WHO AM”

El is generic for gods.

It is God Who promised to protect Christ, but Christ knew it was of evil to test God in this regard.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 03 2007,04:35)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 02 2007,23:10) Here is something I found I thought interesting: in Luke 4:9-11 it says: 9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10for it is written,   “'He will command his angels concerning you,   to guard you,' 11and  “'On their hands they will bear you up,   lest you strike your foot against a stone.'” This is referencing the OT Psalm 91 9Because you have made the LORD your dwelling place—   the Most High, who is my refuge— 10 no evil shall be allowed to befall you,    no plague come near your tent. 11For he will command his angels concerning you   to guard you in all your ways. 12On their hands they will bear you up,   lest you strike your foot against a stone. However, in the margin my bible gives an alternate translation.  I believe this is an example of scholars knowing what something “actually” says but having to use theology as a guide to their translations. My margin says OR- For you, O Lord (YHWH), are my refuge! You have made the MOST HIGH (El Elyon) your dwelling place. Wow, this is exactly what I have been saying. I then look up this verse in Young's Literal translation and it says: 9(For Thou, O Jehovah, [art] my refuge,) The Most High [El Elyon] thou madest thy habitation. 10Evil happeneth not unto thee, And a plague cometh not near thy tent, 11For His messengers He chargeth for thee, To keep thee in all thy ways, 12On the hands they bear thee up, Lest thou smite against a stone thy foot What do you guys think? EL The Father YHWH The Son Hi MS, Almighty God, the awesome Father of Jesus and all His sons, is the One Who reached out to disinherited and lost man and said “I AM WHO AM” El is generic for gods. It is God Who promised to protect Christ, but Christ knew it was of evil to test God in this regard.

Yes El is generic for God. But it is the Father's Title particulary as Eloah and El Elyon (MOST HIGH). As found in Scripture. As found in Archaeology.

Google the Ugaritic Tablets.

The Father could not have said, “I AM WHO I AM”. Because nobody as ever heard or seen the Father. Jesus told us that.

Was the Father behind or part of the exodus? I believe so.

But, it is the Son YHWH who we are directly reading about.

It doesn't get much clearer than this. Truly what is this saying?

Dueteronomy 32

8When the Most High (El Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
9But the LORD’s (YHWH) portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.

Morningstar paraphrased edition reads:

When The Father El gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he established the nations boundries in equal proportion with the number of the ruling sons of El. His son YHWH, our God, received Jacob's people as his inheritence from his Father.

[NickHassan]

Hi MS,
If we decide it was not Almighty God Who spoke to Abram are we allowed to make the rest up?

[Morningstar]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 03 2007,10:19)

Hi MS, If we decide it was not Almighty God Who spoke to Abram are we allowed to make the rest up?

Most of theology is made up.

I am just seeking Truth, friend.

If I discover my error I will renew my mind.

However, we were talking about MOSES, not Abram.

For it is Moses whom heard the name “I AM who I AM”.

Rather, than saying “NUH UH” and just saying I am making things up.

Take my verses and exegis and demonstrate what they “really mean”.

We all know that many of us believe the bible is declaring to us different things. The point is to demonstrate why we believe what we believe and not just to continue to tell each other that the other is wrong and making things up.

You are friends with t8 and you don't see eye to eye on scripture is he making things up?

No, I don't think so either. We all believe what we believe for reasons. Lets dissect those reasons in a shared search for truth.

So where I have went wrong?

[NickHassan]

Hi MS,
We know God communicated with men in various ways, but only since Christ came has it been through His Son. God spoke through a donkey and in a still small voice and in the thunder of Jn 12.29 but what was heard was not the true voice of God.
Heb 1
“1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; “

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 02 2007,20:41)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2007,12:01) t8 Oh so you mean that if it does not have a definate article it cant be refering to the Father? Or if it does it is only refering to the Father? How about this one… 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. Exactly the point WJ. It is identifying the god of this age and not talking about the nature of the Most High God. If it said “the God” and the description wasn't pointing to another god, then you would assume that it was talking about the Most High God. The point is when you see “theos” or “elohim”, you should be wondering if it is identifying or talking about a quality, and if it is identifying then identifying who? The Most High God? The god of this age? A false god? Or what? It is not enough to read theos and elohim and just assume that it is the most High God. Same goes for the word Adam/man and Devil/devil. Scripture bears this out.

t8

But you see I dont believe in “qualitative gods” like you do.

Scriptures teach there is the “One True God” and all other so called gods are false gods. Nothing else.

What does “One true God,Theos” mean to you?” To me it means there is “One True God,Theos” and all other gods, theos is false. But of course if you believe this, then  you have to believe Yeshua is False also, which obviously he is “True Theos”.

So it leaves you a choice. Is there only “One True Theos” or is there other theos, which means the word “ONE” is useless.

You said…

Quote

The point is when you see “theos” or “elohim”, you should be wondering if it is identifying or talking about a quality, and if it is identifying then identifying who?

I have, and the Apostle John would not have used the same word “Theos” in the same sentence in John 1:1 when he could have used other words to put across Yeshua is a god in a qualitative sence.

But he didnt. He didnt put the definate article there so not to confuse the Father with the Son.

And even if you were to say that it is in a qualitative sence, then you still have to contend with this that Isa 1:18 so eloquently put forth…

So in essence t8 is postulating that the “theos” in John 1:1c is adjectival (or qualitative) by virtue of it being anarthrous (lacking a definite article). This is pure sophistry. These arachronistic notions been debunked decades ago by the cream of Greek scholarship. No self respecting grammarian would affirm what t8 has, the weight of NT evidence against it is formidable. Broadly speaking, there are three possible ways to interpret the predicate noun “theos” in the third clause of the above verse. These are:

1. Qualitative/adjectival – e.g. “divine”

2. Indefinite – e.g. “a god”

3. Definite – e.g. “God”

E. C Colwell, in his excellent study, proved that nouns can be made definite irrespective of whether they are arthrous (used with the article) or anarthrous (i.e. article-less). His analysis showed that pre-verbal predicate nominatives are NORMALLY definite. In actual fact he discovered that 87% of definite PNs before the verb were anarthrous in the NT. Based on his findings he offered the rule that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article”. If “theos” does not have an article, it can and often does still mean “God” not “a god” or “divine” as t8 would have everyone believe. Now it’s important to put this rule in it’s proper context, you cannot use Colwell’s rule in and of itself to prove the rendering of John 1:1c one way or the other. It’s made definite, indefinite or qualitative BY THE CONTEXT of the text into which it is placed. The utter irrelevancy of the article to the intended meaning of the predicate noun in John 1:1c is made clear by examining other instances where theos is used in John. Consider these verse from the very same chapter in John’s gospel:

John 1:6
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.

No one would argue that this John intended to identify God, but there is no article attached to theos in this verse

John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Again the noun “theos” is manifestly definite, but no article here either.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Or here…….

If an anarthrous noun demands a qualitative rendering, why is this rule not evoked in these scriptures? It should be abundantly clear by now that the absence of the definite article can not be used as lexical proof that the noun “theos” defaults to a ‘qualitative’ rendering. This principle also applies to texts that are in predicate nominative construction, like John 1:1c. But an important point needs to be made at this stage, which is  – had an arthrous predicate noun construction been used by John in John 1:1c it would have forced a convertible proposition (i.e. a fully reversible statement), thereby affirming Sabellianism. Why? Because in Kione Greek, if an article precedes both case nouns in PN construction then the statement reads the same both ways.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
THere is ONE true God and you should know Him through His son Jesus who came and was anointed with God's Spirit and expressed God living within him on earth.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 03 2007,11:48)

t8 But you see I dont believe in “qualitative gods” like you do. Scriptures teach there is the “One True God” and all other so called gods are false gods. Nothing else. What does “One true God,Theos” mean to you?” To me it means there is “One True God,Theos” and all other gods, theos is false. But of course if you believe this, then you have to believe Yeshua is False also, which obviously he is “True Theos”. So it leaves you a choice. Is there only “One True Theos” or is there other theos, which means the word “ONE” is useless.

How ironic. One true theos and you believe that 3 are the true theos.

If the Word is God and the Word is Christ, then The Father cannot be God because the Word is identified as God according to your understanding.

Similarly if you are the president of the USA, then George Bush cannot be the president of the USA because you are.

When you identify yourself as someone, then that excludes others from being that person.

All other Gods are false according to you.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'

Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'

Your conclusion: Sons of the Most High are false gods.

Psalm 97:7
All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols; worship him, all you gods (Elohim)!

Hebrews 1:6
6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

Your conclusion: The angels of God are false gods.

So your theology forces you to also accept that sons of the Most High, whether men or angel are false gods.

It's like you are saying that there is one Adam and all other adams (men) are false men.

It's like you are saying there is one Devil (Father of lies) and all other devils are false devils.

I personally think you are not adept to be teaching about such things. If you cannot grasp usages of words, then you shouldn't make absolute statements that contradict that which you do not understand.

[Morningstar]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 03 2007,11:48)

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 02 2007,20:41) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2007,12:01) t8 Oh so you mean that if it does not have a definate article it cant be refering to the Father? Or if it does it is only refering to the Father? How about this one… 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. Exactly the point WJ. It is identifying the god of this age and not talking about the nature of the Most High God. If it said “the God” and the description wasn't pointing to another god, then you would assume that it was talking about the Most High God. The point is when you see “theos” or “elohim”, you should be wondering if it is identifying or talking about a quality, and if it is identifying then identifying who? The Most High God? The god of this age? A false god? Or what? It is not enough to read theos and elohim and just assume that it is the most High God. Same goes for the word Adam/man and Devil/devil. Scripture bears this out. t8 But you see I dont believe in “qualitative gods” like you do. Scriptures teach there is the “One True God” and all other so called gods are false gods. Nothing else. What does “One true God,Theos” mean to you?” To me it means there is “One True God,Theos” and all other gods, theos is false. But of course if you believe this, then  you have to believe Yeshua is False also, which obviously he is “True Theos”. So it leaves you a choice. Is there only “One True Theos” or is there other theos, which means the word “ONE” is useless. You said… Quote The point is when you see “theos” or “elohim”, you should be wondering if it is identifying or talking about a quality, and if it is identifying then identifying who? I have, and the Apostle John would not have used the same word “Theos” in the same sentence in John 1:1 when he could have used other words to put across Yeshua is a god in a qualitative sence. But he didnt. He didnt put the definate article there so not to confuse the Father with the Son. And even if you were to say that it is in a qualitative sence, then you still have to contend with this that Isa 1:18 so eloquently put forth… So in essence t8 is postulating that the “theos” in John 1:1c is adjectival (or qualitative) by virtue of it being anarthrous (lacking a definite article). This is pure sophistry. These arachronistic notions been debunked decades ago by the cream of Greek scholarship. No self respecting grammarian would affirm what t8 has, the weight of NT evidence against it is formidable. Broadly speaking, there are three possible ways to interpret the predicate noun “theos” in the third clause of the above verse. These are: 1. Qualitative/adjectival – e.g. “divine” 2. Indefinite – e.g. “a god” 3. Definite – e.g. “God” E. C Colwell, in his excellent study, proved that nouns can be made definite irrespective of whether they are arthrous (used with the article) or anarthrous (i.e. article-less). His analysis showed that pre-verbal predicate nominatives are NORMALLY definite. In actual fact he discovered that 87% of definite PNs before the verb were anarthrous in the NT. Based on his findings he offered the rule that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article”. If “theos” does not have an article, it can and often does still mean “God” not “a god” or “divine” as t8 would have everyone believe. Now it’s important to put this rule in it’s proper context, you cannot use Colwell’s rule in and of itself to prove the rendering of John 1:1c one way or the other. It’s made definite, indefinite or qualitative BY THE CONTEXT of the text into which it is placed. The utter irrelevancy of the article to the intended meaning of the predicate noun in John 1:1c is made clear by examining other instances where theos is used in John. Consider these verse from the very same chapter in John’s gospel: John 1:6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. No one would argue that this John intended to identify God, but there is no article attached to theos in this verse John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, Again the noun “theos” is manifestly definite, but no article here either. John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Or here……. If an anarthrous noun demands a qualitative rendering, why is this rule not evoked in these scriptures? It should be abundantly clear by now that the absence of the definite article can not be used as lexical proof that the noun “theos” defaults to a ‘qualitative’ rendering. This principle also applies to texts that are in predicate nominative construction, like John 1:1c. But an important point needs to be made at this stage, which is  – had an arthrous predicate noun construction been used by John in John 1:1c it would have forced a convertible proposition (i.e. a fully reversible statement), thereby affirming Sabellianism. Why? Because in Kione Greek, if an article precedes both case nouns in PN construction then the statement reads the same both ways. https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

To me scripture clearly clearly clearly declares “other” gods.

Not just imaginary idols. But actual “beings” behind these objects. Whether demons, devils, fallen angels, divine sons or whatever. Is every idol a true respresentation of a principality or power? Maybe not, but they do exist and they did have worshippers and they were represented at least at times and idols and gods.

There is no difference between pagan gods and these biblical beings. The pagan gods were created, they were not true nor eternal, nor all powerful. They had worshippers and idols. They can die! The simularities are overwhelming.

We are battling over the word “God”. Which is just a title meaning mighty one. God actually is the name of the pagan god named “Gad”.

We call our Father after the name of this pagan god. And then battle over these titles.

The Problem is the Father stripped these other sons of power. Psalm 82.

YHWH inherited all Nations. All the other Elohim were destroyed or imprisoned or something. Now these other gods are no longer the top tyre of the Family of the Father. The current other “gods” are fallen angels of lesser order.

We replace these fallen sons and are ex
alted above the lower order of angels into the position held by Christ.

The One True God, as I understand it means:

The Father is the ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY:

Truly Immortal
Ever Existing
Omniscient
Omnipotent
Eternal
First Cause
Source of All

At one time only the Father Was and him Alone. All things ultimately find their source in him. Jesus was the first born, and the God, son of God, who was the instrument (demiurge) of all creation. He was begotten by the Father in his image, uniquely formed from the Father's very being. Jesus then created all things out of Nothing via the divine power from his Father.

[NickHassan]

Hi MS,
Ex 3
“4And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

7And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

8And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

9Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.

10Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.

11And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?

12And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14And 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.

15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. “

Was Jesus the God of the Israelites??

[Morningstar]

Yes he was.

Both El and YHWH were.

[NickHassan]

Hi MS,
So the firstborn son was another God to be worshipped with God?
They seemed to know only ONE GOD.
Jesus identified their God as the Father.

Jn 8.54
” 54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: “

[Author]

Posts