- This topic has 579 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi LU
That’s not really the problem…
Perhaps we should USE THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE THEMSELVES TO EXPRESS OURSELVES ON A PURELY BIBLICAL SUBJECT.Berean,
Specifically, what is the real problem?
I can quote a Bible translation all day long on here but when people will reply as if the scripture does not say what I understand it to say, then I have to use other words to clarify how I believe it does. Like a Bible commentator uses other words to explain the text, so do I. If I were to use the words of the Bible only to express myself on Biblical subjects, I would be using Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. The Bible was not originally written in English. Every English translation is using English to convey the meaning of the original language of the Bible. Compare a translation that you use with parallel translations and you will see that quite often, the words used are different from one translation to another.
So, I typically use a quote from a Bible translation of a Bible verse, then I expand on it when it seems that people need help understanding why I am quoting the verse. Ideally, I could quote a verse and everybody understands the verse the same way but that doesn’t happen most of the time here. So we need to explain our thoughts on the matter to hopefully bring understanding. It is called “teaching.”
Do you find it helpful to refer to Bible commentaries, Berean? If so, which commentaries do you use? Does Ellen White explain Biblical concepts with scripture only without using other words to help bring understanding?
So, if my words do not support Biblical concepts, then please challenge them. However, if my words do support Biblical concepts, then what is the problem with that?
LU: Mike, I’ve been answering a lot of questions for you but you do not answer my questions.
Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God in John 3:16?
Also, Mike can you call Jesus your God and Savior?
No more answers from me till you answer those two questions.
Yes, John calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God in John 3:16. Go on…
Yes, I could call Jesus my God and Savior, but I don’t. A god is an entity conceived of as having power over nature and the affairs of man… an entity that can help you and protect you from those trying to hurt you. Jesus clearly fits that Biblical description of a god. As does Yahweh. And Michael. And Gabriel. And Satan. Etc.
But I keep to the hierarchy Paul laid out for us…
1 Cor 8:5-6… there are many and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
1 Cor 11:3… But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ… and the head of Christ is God.
Now consider that Michael is also a god and a savior to God’s people. He is “the great prince who stands watch over your people” and “Michael your prince”. (Dan 12:1, 10:21)
Can YOU call Michael your God and Savior, Kathi?
Anyway, I’ve answered your questions directly as requested. Now we can get back the normal back and forth leisurely discussion that was interrupted by your extended absence, right? Why not start with my arguments in post #932448 on the previous page, as it contains points I made quite a while ago on the page before that.
LU: I can quote a Bible translation all day long on here but when people will reply as if the scripture does not say what I understand it to say, then I have to use other words to clarify how I believe it does. Like a Bible commentator uses other words to explain the text, so do I.
I think Berean is calling you out for going overboard with your “clarifications”. You tend to “clarify” a doctrine into the Bible that is completely foreign to what the Bible actually teaches. He is suggesting that you make your arguments using the words the Bible actually DOES say.
For example, it’s not “clarifying” to completely change, “for us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ” to “for us there is one God team or Godhead, the Unity of Yahweh…the Father who is the only true God and the Son, Jesus Christ, the only begotten God who is our one Lord”.
That isn’t “clarification”, Kathi… it’s a complete re-write of what the verse actually teaches. I believe it is this habit of completely re-writing the Bible that Berean is taking issue with.
It’s one thing to present your understanding of the scriptural words. It is another thing to re-write the words so drastically that they no longer resemble the original.
Math Quiz For Kathi
1. If there is one red apple and one green apple, how many apples are there?
a) None
b) One
c) Two
d) Three
e) All of the above
2. If there is one unbegotten god and one begotten god, how many gods are there?
a) None
b) One
c) Two
d) Three
e) All of the above
Mike,
You said:
That isn’t “clarification”, Kathi… it’s a complete re-write of what the verse actually teaches.
I’m not rewriting a verse, I’m summing up several Biblical concepts.
Mike,
“Math quiz”
#1. c
#2. none of the above, there is one God and one Lord. Yahweh is both God and Lord.
Mike,
You asked:
Kathi, do YOU think the word “name” in John 17:26 refers to God’s literal name?
Yes.
I already answered the second question in that post, btw.
Mike,
You said:
Yes, John calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God in John 3:16.
Very good. I call Jesus the only begotten Son of God too. Therefore all other sons of God are not begotten in the manner in which Jesus was. Agree?
Yes, I could call Jesus my God and Savior, but I don’t.
Whose God and Savior is He besides Peter’s?
A god is an entity conceived of as having power over nature and the affairs of man… an entity that can help you and protect you from those trying to hurt you.
How is that different than an angel?
LU: I’m not rewriting a verse, I’m summing up several Biblical concepts.
I think Berean was asking why you can’t do your summing up using the same TERMS and PHRASES the Bible uses – instead of inventing your own terminology and phraseology.
Terms like “Godhead” and “Yahweh Unity” are not in any scripture. He’s asking why you would use such unscriptural TERMINOLOGY to sum up scriptural teachings. Why not just teach your understanding using terminology that IS in the Bible?
It’s a fair point, and I agree with him/her.
LU: #1. c
#2. none of the above, there is one God and one Lord. Yahweh is both God and Lord.
One correct, the other blatantly incorrect. That’s a 50% grade, which is an F. You have failed a very simple math quiz, Kathi. That’s how far from reality your bizarre doctrine has led you. Shame.
Mike,
You asked: Why not just teach your understanding using terminology that IS in the Bible?
You mean like this:
Deut 10:17 For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who does not show partiality, nor take a bribe.
Rev 17:14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”
Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name by which he shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness.
etc.
Mike: Kathi, do YOU think the word “name” in John 17:26 refers to God’s literal name?
LU: Yes.
Really? In what NT scripture can I read this literal name of God as Jesus was making it known to his followers?
LU: I already answered the second question in that post, btw.
No you didn’t, actually. Here’s what I asked…
Mike: Exodus 23:20-22… Behold, I am sending an angel before you… Pay attention to him….since My Name is in him… If you will listen carefully to his voice and do everything I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies…
Kathi, do you think the word “name” in this passage refers to God’s literal name? Does this passage (especially the part where it is the angel’s voice, but God saying stuff) means this angel of God is also a part of the “Yahweh Unity”?
And here was your response…
LU: Without researching the passage, angel names such as Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, all have “el” in them which is one of God’s literal names.
Both questions require a yes or a no, Kathi. And no, “el” is not “one of God’s literal names”. El means god, and god is a title, not a literal personal name. We can address Joe Biden as “President” or “Mr. President”, and people in America would know who we’re talking about, but “president” is not one of Biden’s literal names. It is a title.
Anyway, that is a side topic. I’d like your yes or no to the two questions, preferably including a short explanation. Thanks.
Mike,
You asked:
Really? In what NT scripture can I read this literal name of God as Jesus was making it known to his followers?
Whenever Jesus referred to Yahweh as his father, he identifies his father’s name to his followers. For instance, when he was 12 years old and stayed behind from the caravan and was found teaching in the temple, Jesus identified who his Father was…Yahweh. He said that he was in his father’s house which they knew as Yahweh’s house…and so on.
Mike,
You said:
And no, “el” is not “one of God’s literal names”. El means god, and god is a title, not a literal personal name.
It is often used as a name for Yahweh. It also can be used as a title.
LU: Very good. I call Jesus the only begotten Son of God too.
Yes I know. Unfortunately, one of us is apparently oblivious to the FACT that the Son OF God cannot very well BE the very God that he is the Son OF – and therefore, if the son of God in question is a god at all, he must NECESSARILY be a DIFFERENT god.
This is a very easy thing to understand, and you used to understand it because years ago you used to agree with me that John 1:1 mentions two gods. But then the very doctrine that caused you fail a very easy kindergarten-level math quiz also caused you to not be able to understand such a simple thing as what I stated above. Shame.
LU: Therefore all other sons of God are not begotten in the manner in which Jesus was. Agree?
I don’t know any more. I would have said, “Yes, Jesus is begotten in a unique and particular manner just like when Isaac is called Abraham’s only begotten son.” I always understood this begetting to have taken place before the world began, and it referred to the “particular manner” of him being the very first of God’s spirit sons to be created. But now you’ve convinced me that Jesus’ “begetting” refers to when he was raised from the dead. And if that’s truly the case, it has nothing to do with being brought into existence before the world began, and it means that his “only begotten” status will be short-lived, since he is the first of many begotten brethren to follow. Heck, he might already be chilling in heaven with some of those begotten brethren as we speak – meaning he is no longer the ONLY begotten son of God.
Thoughts?
LU: Whose God and Savior is He besides Peter’s?
Peter’s? I don’t understand. And if you’d answer my question about Michael in a clear and direct manner, I think you’d have your answer to why, although Jesus is one of many gods and one of many saviors of God’s people, I don’t personally call him “My God and Savior”.
Kathi, what if YOU aligned YOURSELF with Paul’s hierarchy teachings (“one God, the Father, AND one Lord”, and “the head of Christ is God”)? Notice Paul didn’t say, “One God, the Father and Son”. He clearly identified the Father alone as our “one God”, right? And Jesus as someone other than that one God, right? Hence the word “and” separating the two, right?
So what if you just taught and practiced the way Paul instructed? What if you referred to the Father alone as your one God, and to His servant Jesus as your Lord?
Mike: A god is an entity conceived of as having power over nature and the affairs of man… an entity that can help you and protect you from those trying to hurt you.
LU: How is that different than an angel?
It’s not! That was the point of my “Many Gods” thread. There are no “angels” in scripture. That is an English ADDITION to the scriptures. In the Bible, there are only God’s spirit sons, all of whom are gods, and some of whom are messengers. Jesus is both – as attested by Rev 1:1, where even after being raised and exalted, he is STILL delivering messages for his and our God.
The English word “angel” refers to a messenger who is also a supernatural spirit son of God. Jesus is exactly that. It’s just that in the Bible, they are called “messengers” and “gods” – not ever “angels”.
Btw, I had asked you quite a while ago to DEFINE the word “god” in Phil 3:19. Please do so now, since we’re back on the subject. Thanks.
Mike,
You asked:
Btw, I had asked you quite a while ago to DEFINE the word “god” in Phil 3:19.
In Phil 3:19 god =belly or physical appetite for food.
LU: You mean like this:
Deut 10:17 For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who does not show partiality, nor take a bribe.
Rev 17:14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”
Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name by which he shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness.
Yes, exactly! Then people could easily explain to you that both the Father (in Deut 10:17) and the Son (in Rev 17:14) are clearly lords of other lords, and that two people being lords of other lords doesn’t mean they are part of some “Unity Entity” comprised of two persons. You know… just like Jesus (in Rev 17:44), Nebuchadnezzar (in Daniel 2:37), and Artaxerxes (in Ezra 7:12) can all be kings of other kings without it meaning that they are part of some “Unity Entity” comprised of three persons.
And they can easily explain to you that Jesus being metaphorically called “Yahweh is our Righteousness” doesn’t mean that he IS Yahweh Himself anymore than the city of Jerusalem being called by the SAME EXACT name doesn’t mean that is IS Yahweh Himself.
So yes, please do stick to using scriptural terminology to the best of your ability. I would appreciate it, and I suspect that Berean would too. Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
