- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
God is a title and has nothing to do with how great a person is. The one that is over all is the Father.
Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all who IS ABOVE ALL and through all, and in us all. And the Father has a name, the translators were afraid to mispronounce His name and that is why they used God instead. The Fathers name is Jehovah. He is above all. No trinity or Oneness doctrine. It is not Biblical.
Peace and Love Mrs.Sorry I have been absent for a while. Ended up in the Hospital and am now in a rehab center for a few weeks. They have a computer to use but I cannot remain on here long.
I will check in from time to time.
martianMartian,
I pray that you return home healthy and strong in a very short period of time.
Good to hear from you.Tim
Dear Martian,
Trust on God “the Jehovah Ralfah”. We really missed your wonderful posts. I still read and re-read your posts. May God grant you good time with me in the Hospital too.
With love AdamThanks everyone for your kind words. I am doing well but do not have my research material with me to post much.
Thanks again for your kind words.
martianHi Martian Sorry that you have been sick, hope and pray that you are soon well again and can go Home. Being sick is no fun, I know to much about it. So I sympathize with you whole heartily.
Peace and Love Mrs.Hi Colter,
Quote * A Father is not a Father without offspring. The dictionary defines “offspring” this way: one coming into being through plant or animal reproduction.
And “Father” this way: Male parent; God; originator.Just so we are talking about the same thing, I gave us a working definition of both terms.
Indeed the Father became a Dad when Jesus was born *of* him. Jesus is *of* God. We are *of* Jesus. Essentially, we are said to be Jesus' offspring.
Quote * If no one gets to the Father except through the son then no one prior to Jesus' creation as the “temporary God” was ever saved.
Actually we are not “saved” yet either! We receive the salvation of our souls and our adoption as sons after the resurrection. And so will those who were before Christ. You are correct that those who were prior to the Son of God lived by different rules and methods/means of gaining forgiveness. But Paul tells us there was something wrong with that covenant and that is why we received a new one.Quote * Let us create man in OUR own image, not, let us create man in MY image.
Snore. Really, this passage has been debated so many times that it has lost it's credibility with me all together. Besides, if you look at the NIV Study bible it will give you an idea of what this passage and the words “OUR” can mean. For instance, it doesn't necessarily mean God was talking to Jesus!Quote * Show us the Father”…..”if you have seen me you have seen the Father”, not, if you have seen me you have seen a temporary representative of the Father.
Jesus was God's perfect representative. I have known sons who look just like their fathers – just like they were picked out of their nose! Truly! I have known some of these sons who have every attribute their father does and so on. To say that when I saw this son – that I saw their father too – would not be a stretch.I think Jesus was basically saying, “Look, dudes, you know you can't see God and live……I'm the next best thing…..to see me is to see him!”
Take care,
MandyQuote (martian @ May 17 2008,08:22) Thanks everyone for your kind words. I am doing well but do not have my research material with me to post much.
Thanks again for your kind words.
martian
Bro,You have all your research floating around in your brain! Just write anything…….I am one of your fans, among other's, your posts do bless!
Give us your opinions and thoughts, it doesn't have to be so factual and scriptural – sometimes batting around ideas/theories help spur on study.
Besides, it will help you to recover too! Take care, OK?
Much love and prayers,
MandyHi martian:
Sorry to hear that you have been sick. Praying for your speedy recovery.
May God Bless You and your family.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 14 2008,02:00) gsilva72………….Yes Jesus is lord, but don't stop there, because scripture shows that we should confess Jesus as lord, to the (GLORY OF GOD), lets not leave that part out. Where Thomas said my lord (AND) my God, it finely downed on Thomas the God the Father was in Jesus and was present there also, God was indwelling Jesus through His Spirit, the same Spirit He can indwell all with.
The Greek in this passage reads as follows,ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou
Which when transliterated from Greek to English reads thusly:
“Answered Thomas and he said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me“
This was a statement directed TO YESHUA, as the nominative was used for the vocative in the verse. Yeshua was the recipient and to my mind there is nothing in the context of the John 20:28 passage to indicate that Thomas' exclamation was made to an identity outside (or inside!) of Him. Furthermore, if it were true that Thomas was merely addressing the God inside of Yeshua, and this was some kind of accepted protocol in those days (if it was not accepted Thomas would surely have been rebuked by Yeshua), we should have numerous example of disciples addressing other Holy Spirit-indwelt men as “God”. Or at the very least one other. But do we find this in the NT? Was there a record of Paul or Peter or JTB being addressed as “God”? No, not one. Only Yeshua is called “God” by His followers. How curious. Gene, I think your theory is flimsy and requires some substantiation above and beyond what you have provided in your post.
Quote (Not3in1 @ May 14 2008,04:23) God + God = God Man + Man = Man
God + Man = Divine Man
Hi Not3,
I agree. However, unless you accept there is plurality within unity concept that goes along with this then you are left with bitheism. There is only one true divine being, YHWH.2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.So God shares his nature, yet not all who partake will be known as YHWH, correct?
There is one most high God/Theos/Elohim.
Scripture calls some angels, men, even idols and Satan as gods/theos/elohim.The context in which theos/elohim is used determines whether it is YHWH or not.
Not all theos/elohim in scripture is YHWH. So it shouldn't be an automatic response to say that Jesus is YHWH if he is referred to as my theos. An automatic response that does such can only be the result of a predefined doctrine influencing the outcome.
Thanks for listening.
PS
theos {theh'-os}
Word Origin:
of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity
Usage in the KJV:
God 1320, god 13, godly 3, God-ward 4214 2, misc 5
Definition:
1. a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2. the Godhead,
3. spoken of the only and true God
1. refers to the things of God
2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
4. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
1. God's representative or viceregent
1. of magistrates and judgesThis argument is common argument used by henotheists when confronted with their polytheism. T8 argues that although there is one Almighty God there exists other lesser divinities, rightly called “gods”. The problem with this though is that nowhere in the Bible do we find the ascription of divinity to these “gods”. Included in the semantic scope of both “elohim” and “theos” is the concept of authority. Satan is described as the god of this world because he temporarily usurped that authority from YHWH. But does this ascription in any sense imply divinity? No, of course not. Satan is a fallen creature, he most assuredly does not have godly nature.
Similarly, at times men are described with these terms in a representative sense or even an ironic/sarcastic sense, with the Israelite magistrates in Psalms 82:1-6 being a good example of both. Again, it’s patently obvious from the context of this Psalm that elohim was not intended to denote divinity, verses 3 and 7 bear this out unmistakably. So if t8 want this contention to have any validity then it’s requisite that he fronts up with a Bible verse where theos or elohim are used in reference to a being other than Yeshua and YHWH where divinity is implied in the context. I think he will find this very difficult. Especially given that not only do the Bible writer’s go to great pains in attesting to the existence of only One true God (YHWH), they are also equally emphatic in dichotomising YHWH from all other gods (who are therefore, by default, false gods). For instance – Deuteronomy 32:21, 1 Samuel 12:21, Psalm 96:5, Isaiah 37:19; 41:23-24, 29, Jeremiah 2:11; 5:7; 16:20, 1 Corinthians 8:4; 10:19-20, Galatians 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 1:9…
So it should be quite apparent that when it comes to “Gods” the Bible places them into only two categories; true and false. There are no “true gods” aside from YHWH. YHWH, the Creator is in a metaphysical class alone. YHWH has no ontological contemporaries. There is the eternal YHWH and all else is His temporal creation. This is biblical monotheism.
T8 may also use 2 Peter 1:4, where man are said to become partakers in the divine nature”, to try to add credibility to the notion that Yeshua is a lesser god with YHWH’s nature. But this verse cannot be used this way without reading far too much into it’s conveyance. Being a “partaker” in the divine nature does not, to my mind, intimate that the divine nature is to be permanently and irrevocably conferred on the believer, that it will become intrinsic to us. It seems to me that the very word he used (partakers – koinonos) argues against this notion. Someone does not become, or take on, the thing in which they “partake” in. When Paul warns the Corinthians against being “participants” with demons, it's obvious from the context that he does not imagine there is a tangible risk that that demonic nature would become intrinsic to them. And certainly the semantic range of “koinonos” does allow for the idea of participating, or fellowshipping in, something temporarily. Being a “partaker” in the context of 2 Peter 1:4 may simply mean that believers would one day experience YHWH. Alternatively, it may very well be a present-tense reference to believers taking on the qualities and attributes of Christ, by virtue of us being “born again” into Him. I think this later interpretation is supported by the later part of the verse:
“For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”
The past tense word “escaped” denotes something that has already taken place. Peter, far from anticipating something, appears to be affirming that the “participation” provides a means of escape in this life from the “corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”. This theme that is pressed even further in the next verse – “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge”. The context here switches to the present tense, the here and now, and the verbs Peter used were manifestly present tense. Many scholars hold to this view. At any rate there is more than enough doubt in the verse as to invalidate it’s viability as a supporting crutch for t8’s overtly Mormonesque view that we will be become divine beings in the next life. We are human and will always be as such. This notion of the post-resurrection deification of believers runs completely counter to biblical revelation on monotheism. So an appeal to this verse as a means of equating Yeshua’s “divine” nature with ours, and thereby down playing it, is also evokes polytheism, only from another angle.
From: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 17 2008,11:13) This argument is common argument used by henotheists when confronted with their polytheism. T8 argues that although there is one Almighty God there exists other lesser divinities, rightly called “gods”. The problem with this though is that nowhere in the Bible do we find the ascription of divinity to these “gods”. Included in the semantic scope of both “elohim” and “theos” is the concept of authority. Satan is described as the god of this world because he temporarily usurped that authority from YHWH. But does this ascription in any sense imply divinity? No, of course not. Satan is a fallen creature, he most assuredly does not have godly nature. Similarly, at times men are described with these terms in a representative sense or even an ironic/sarcastic sense, with the Israelite magistrates in Psalms 82:1-6 being a good example of both. Again, it’s patently obvious from the context of this Psalm that elohim was not intended to denote divinity, verses 3 and 7 bear this out unmistakably. So if t8 want this contention to have any validity then it’s requisite that he fronts up with a Bible verse where theos or elohim are used in reference to a being other than Yeshua and YHWH where divinity is implied in the context. I think he will find this very difficult. Especially given that not only do the Bible writer’s go to great pains in attesting to the existence of only One true God (YHWH), they are also equally emphatic in dichotomising YHWH from all other gods (who are therefore, by default, false gods). For instance – Deuteronomy 32:21, 1 Samuel 12:21, Psalm 96:5, Isaiah 37:19; 41:23-24, 29, Jeremiah 2:11; 5:7; 16:20, 1 Corinthians 8:4; 10:19-20, Galatians 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 1:9…
So it should be quite apparent that when it comes to “Gods” the Bible places them into only two categories; true and false. There are no “true gods” aside from YHWH. YHWH, the Creator is in a metaphysical class alone. YHWH has no ontological contemporaries. There is the eternal YHWH and all else is His temporal creation. This is biblical monotheism.
T8 may also use 2 Peter 1:4, where man are said to become partakers in the divine nature”, to try to add credibility to the notion that Yeshua is a lesser god with YHWH’s nature. But this verse cannot be used this way without reading far too much into it’s conveyance. Being a “partaker” in the divine nature does not, to my mind, intimate that the divine nature is to be permanently and irrevocably conferred on the believer, that it will become intrinsic to us. It seems to me that the very word he used (partakers – koinonos) argues against this notion. Someone does not become, or take on, the thing in which they “partake” in. When Paul warns the Corinthians against being “participants” with demons, it's obvious from the context that he does not imagine there is a tangible risk that that demonic nature would become intrinsic to them. And certainly the semantic range of “koinonos” does allow for the idea of participating, or fellowshipping in, something temporarily. Being a “partaker” in the context of 2 Peter 1:4 may simply mean that believers would one day experience YHWH. Alternatively, it may very well be a present-tense reference to believers taking on the qualities and attributes of Christ, by virtue of us being “born again” into Him. I think this later interpretation is supported by the later part of the verse:
“For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”
The past tense word “escaped” denotes something that has already taken place. Peter, far from anticipating something, appears to be affirming that the “participation” provides a means of escape in this life from the “corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”. This theme that is pressed even further in the next verse – “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge”. The context here switches to the present tense, the here and now, and the verbs Peter used were manifestly present tense. Many scholars hold to this view. At any rate there is more than enough doubt in the verse as to invalidate it’s viability as a supporting crutch for t8’s overtly Mormonesque view that we will be become divine beings in the next life. We are human and will always be as such. This notion of the post-resurrection deification of believers runs completely counter to biblical revelation on monotheism. So an appeal to this verse as a means of equating Yeshua’s “divine” nature with ours, and thereby down playing it, is also evokes polytheism, only from another angle.
From: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375
Hi Isa 1:18Amen again brother.
There is no example in the NT scriptures where any of the Apostles or followers of Christ used the term theos in a divine way for any other being other than Jesus.
The claim that “Theos” is used for angels and men in a divine sense is not supported by NT scriptures.
Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
(1 Cor 8:4, 5)Blessings!
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 17 2008,11:13) This argument is common argument used by henotheists…
This is simply observation from reading scripture.It is there for everyone to see.
2 Peter 1:4 is in scripture and theos and elohim usage in the bible is not exclusive to YHWH.
That is the plain facts. No need for a predefined doctrine here, it speaks for itself and YHWH gave us a mind to comprehend this.
Simple and true.
Not complicated, beyond human understanding and confusing.
Thanks for listening.
Quote (t8 @ May 17 2008,17:22) We now await the response designed to hide this and confuse the readers.
t8Seems that you confuse the readers by all the gods you talk about!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 17 2008,16:27) There is no example in the NT scriptures where any of the Apostles or followers of Christ used the term theos in a divine way for any other being other than Jesus. The claim that “Theos” is used for angels and men in a divine sense is not supported by NT scriptures.
I never said that all theos/gods is a claim for divinity. That is what you think I am saying, but I am not.I even stressed the point that idols and Satan are called theos and therefore that proves that theos can be used outside of divine nature for what idol has divine nature?
Jesus is God's primary representative, therefore theos is an apt word to use. Assuming divine nature should not an automatic response. Divine nature would need to be referred to (such as the next scripture) if that is a conclusion to draw.
E.g., Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.I think the problem that you guys have is that you read too much into what the bible says and what some people (like myself) say.
It would be better for all if we just read the text and assumed no more than what was written. That includes what others write here too.
You would see much more clearly if you removed Trinity bias from understanding scripture and you might even understand what I am saying too.
Let scripture speak for itself, it is there to teach us. It is not there for us to teach or interpret scripture with our own understanding.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
