- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Out of all the title confusion trickery, it is with the word “god” that trinitarians make this argument the most. I found this article rather interesting:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009….dy.html
Even most trinitarian scholars will admit the truth of the scriptural use of the words rendered “god,” “gods,” and “God.”
The Trinitarian-written NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 tells us:
“In the language of the OT … rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title 'god' … or be called 'son of God'.” – footnote for Ps. 82:1.
And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this same study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king …, it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called 'gods' in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God's judgment as 'sons of the Most High'. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this…. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a 'god' and 'son of the Most High'.” – Vol. 3, p. 187.
The popular trinitarian scholar W. E. Vine tells us:
“The word [theos, 'god' or 'God'] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34″ – p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:
“Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart.”
And Barnes' Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:
The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,
'If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word “god” as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.' –Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. GOD – is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. – Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;…Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9…John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28….”
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem'; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, … x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” – p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:
Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power…. b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels…. c. angels Ps. 97:7…”
Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek. The very trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 –
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for 'God' or 'the gods'; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”
Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps…,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), – p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/”a god” about the same time the NT was written.
And the earliest Christians like Origen and others – – including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine – – also had this understanding for “a god.” And, as we saw above, many highly respected NT scholars of this century agree. (For example, Ernst Haenchen tells us in his commentary on the Gospel of John:
“It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ”. – John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.)
All of this shows the scriptural understanding (as well as the same understanding by Christian writers of the first centuries) of “god” as applied to angels and certain men who were trying to follow God or who were representatives or ambassadors for God.
Just bec
ause it sounds strange to our modern ears is no reason to ignore the facts. And no reason to take advantage of that fact by claiming that only two understandings of the words theos and elohim are possible: “God” and “false gods.”*****
The idea that anyone called by the word “god” is either “The God” or a “false god” is a Title Confusion Trick.
Do not be fooled.
People who support this title confusion trick like to randomly through out words like “polytheism” (A SCARE TACTIC) as though that were a Bible word. The worship of other gods is certainly condemned in the Bible, no question. Jesus directed worship to his Father. We do not worship other gods.
But make no mistake…..
The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”david
But make no mistake…..
The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,18:42) But make no mistake…..
The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”
David himself cited Wikipedia which says that the NWT contains an “incoherent polytheism.” David's statement above reflects that he is trying to shake off the “incoherent polytheism” to which he adheres. But the more he speaks about it the more incoherent he becomes.The JW's say that the Word was “a god.” At the same time they confess there is only one “true” God (the Father). So David and the JW's are forced to the conclusion that Jesus is a false god.
David has not been too competitive lately.
thinker
Hi TT,
So both Jesus and his Father are equal as gods to you.
So why do you see others as being polytheistic?Quote The JW's say that the Word was “a god.” At the same time they confess there is only one “true” God (the Father). So David and the JW's are forced to the conclusion that Jesus is a false god. THINKER, you apparently did not read the original post. Or at least, you're not willing to discuss what it says. Because it was very clearly shown that your above logic is absurd!
As I said before:
The idea that anyone called by the word “god” is either “The God” or a “false god” is a Title Confusion Trick.Thinker, The fact that you cannot address the logic of my first post only highlights this fact.
Thinker, ONE QUESTION:
Were the angels “The God” or “false gods”? They would have to be one or the other, or your logic falls apart, and you are guilty of picking and choosing when and where your logic is called for.
So which is it?Let's recap. Your logic is that anyone called “god” must either be “the God” or a “false god.” And since we don't hold that Jesus is “The God” you say:
Quote So David and the JW's are forced to the conclusion that Jesus is a false god. But, according to numerous trinitarian references above, the angels were certainly called “gods.”
So, again, I ask [almost certainly with no reply to come]:
WHERE THE ANGELS “FALSE GODS” OR WHERE THE ANGELS “THE GOD”?
I wonder how long THE THINKER will manage to ignore and sidestep this question.
david
Quote (david @ Dec. 21 2009,17:55) Out of all the title confusion trickery, it is with the word “god” that trinitarians make this argument the most. I found this article rather interesting: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009….dy.html
Even most trinitarian scholars will admit the truth of the scriptural use of the words rendered “god,” “gods,” and “God.”
The Trinitarian-written NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 tells us:
“In the language of the OT … rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title 'god' … or be called 'son of God'.” – footnote for Ps. 82:1.
And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this same study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king …, it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called 'gods' in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God's judgment as 'sons of the Most High'. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this…. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a 'god' and 'son of the Most High'.” – Vol. 3, p. 187.
The popular trinitarian scholar W. E. Vine tells us:
“The word [theos, 'god' or 'God'] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34″ – p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:
“Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart.”
And Barnes' Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:
The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,
'If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word “god” as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.' –Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. GOD – is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. – Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;…Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9…John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28….”
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem'; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, … x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” – p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:
Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power…. b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels…. c. angels Ps. 97:7…”
Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek. The very trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 –
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for 'God' or 'the gods'; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”
Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps…,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), – p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/”a god” about the same time the NT was written.
And the earliest Christians like Origen and others – – including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine – – also had this understanding for “a god.” And, as we saw above, many highly respected NT scholars of this century agree. (For example, Ernst Haenchen tells us in his commentary on the Gospel of John:
“It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ”. – John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.)
All of this shows the scriptural understanding (as well a
s the same understanding by Christian writers of the first centuries) of “god” as applied to angels and certain men who were trying to follow God or who were representatives or ambassadors for God.Just because it sounds strange to our modern ears is no reason to ignore the facts. And no reason to take advantage of that fact by claiming that only two understandings of the words theos and elohim are possible: “God” and “false gods.”
*****
The idea that anyone called by the word “god” is either “The God” or a “false god” is a Title Confusion Trick.
Do not be fooled.
People who support this title confusion trick like to randomly through out words like “polytheism” (A SCARE TACTIC) as though that were a Bible word. The worship of other gods is certainly condemned in the Bible, no question. Jesus directed worship to his Father. We do not worship other gods.
But make no mistake…..
The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”david
TO ALL:David wants you to forget that he started this thread due to my statement that Christ's title as Savior implies that He is Divine. Yet David does not even touch upon Christ's name as Savior in the above OP. Here is how it started.
I said this:
“David,
Your reasoning is circular. Show how the KJV treats “God” and “Savior” seperately. And show how Jesus could be the “Savior” without being God. And explain how you can have two Saviors.”David replied:
“This argument actually makes me vomit in my mouth a little. It's so simplistic. I created another thread “Title Confusion Trick, Savior.” Please find your obvious answer to this question there”.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….9;st=30
Note that I specifically asked David to explain how he could have two Saviors. He replied saying that he started another thread called “Confusion Trick Savior” inwhich my questions are answered. But David did not start a thread called “Confusion Trick Savior.” The thread he started is called “Title Confusion Trick: The word god” inwhich he does not take up Christ's title as Savior at all.
See how David tried to run that past you all? David changed the subject from Christ's title as Savior to His title as God and then claims that my questions are answered.
Here is my question again: “And show how Jesus could be the 'Savior' without being God. And explain how you can have two Saviors.”
Again, David made no attempt at all to explain how Christ could be Savior without being God. And he does not once mention Christ's title as Savior in his very wordy OP. In other words, the opening post in David's new thread is totally evasive.
Let's look at Titus 2 again:
“13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”
It clearly says that it is Christ who redeemed us in order that He may purify for HIMSELF a peculiar people zealous of good works. Jesus Christ does not purify us for the Father in this statement. It says that He purifies us for HIMSELF which would make Him an idolater if He were not God.
Therefore, David needs to do much more than disprove Sharp's rule that says that “God” and “Savior” are one and the same person. David needs to show how Christ can the Savior without being God without being evasioove about it.
Christ's divinity is necessarily inferred in His title as Savior.
thinker
Hi TT,
So at least two divine beings?
We are the people of the God of Israel in Christ.
Polytheism is of ignorant and pagan cultures and you should abhor idolatry.There is a direct statement about Yeshua HaMoshiach [Jesus] being the Son of Yahovah in the Psalms: “…He said to me, 'You [Yeshua HaMoshiach/Jesus] are my son, today I [Yahovah] have begotten you.” Psalm 2:7
There were plans, from the beginning, to make Yeshua HaMoshiach [Jesus] a human as shown in Deuteronomy: “…he [Yahovah] will raise up for you a Prophet [Yeshua HaMoshiach/Jesus] like me [Moses], an Israeli, a man to whom you must listen and whom you must obey.” Deuteronomy 18:15, TLB; see also Acts 3:22
During His ministry on Earth, Yeshua HaMoshiach [Jesus] stated that He taught not His own wisdom, but that of His Father, Yahovah: “For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.” John 12:49
So many bible verses to prove the trinity false!
Over a hundred so far!
Just in the New Testament!
Examine your own Bibles as to the accuracy!
Yeshua HaMoshiach was not 'Elohim, but 'Elohim's Son!
Matthew 3:16-17; 8:29; 11:27; 12:18; 14:33; 16:16-17; 17:5; 27:54
Mark 5:7; 15:39
Luke 1:32; 1:35; 8:28; 9:35; 10:22
John 1:13; 1:18; 1:34; 1:49; 3:16; 5:19-23; 5:37; 6:40; 6:69; 8:18; 8:42; 10:15; 10:36; 11:4; 12:49-50; 14:13; 14:23; 14:28; 16:17; 17:1-16; 20:17; 20:31
Acts 2:22-24; 3:13; 3:26; 9:20
Romans 1:4; 5:10; 8:29
1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28
2 Corinthians 1:19
Galatians 4:4
Philippians 2:9
Colossians 1:13
1 Thessalonians 1:10
1 Timothy 2:5
Hebrews 1:2; 2:9; 4:14; 5:7-8
1 Peter 1:3
2 Peter 1:17
1 John 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:10; 4:14-15; 5:11-12
2 John 1:9
Revelation 2:18Atleast sixty Bible verses which prove without a doubt that Yeshua HaMoshiach [Jesus] is not 'Elohim, but instead is SON of 'Elohim.
Matthew 3:16-17; 8:29; 11:27; 12:18; 14:33; 16:16; 17:5; 27:54
Mark 5:7; 15:39
Luke 1:32; 8:28; 9:35; 10:22
John 1:18; 1:34; 1:49; 3:16; 5:19-23; 6:40; 6:69; 8:42; 10:15; 11:4; 12:49-50; 14:13; 14:23; 14:28; 16:17; 17:1-26
Acts 2:22-24; 3:13; 3:26; 9:20
Romans 1:4; 5:10; 8:13; 8:29-32
1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28
2 Corinthians 1:19
Galatians 4:4
Colossians 1:13
1 Thessalonians 1:10
Hebrews 1:2; 4:14; 5:8; 7:3; 11:17
2 Peter 1:17
1 John 1:3; 1:22; 3:23; 4:10; 4:14-15; 5:6; 5:11-12
2 John 1:9
Revelation 2:8Trinitarians use John 1:1 as the proof that Yahovah and Yeshua HaMoshiach [Jesus] are one and the same:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.” John 1:1, KJV
And on the surface it seems rather straight forward the relationship of Yahovah and Yeshua HaMoshiach [Jesus].
But truth does not come from a single Bible verses taken out of context or blindly accepted without some study and research, now does it.
The Greek manuscripts of John 1:1 show that the Greek definite article is used to distinguish Yahovah as “the G-d” from his Son.”
The Emphatic Diaglott Containing the Original Greek Text of What Is Commonly Styled the New Testament gives the correct translation:
“In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the G-d, and a god was the word.” John 1:1, DGT)
Another Trinity theory is in 1John 5:7-8:
“For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” 1 John 5:7-8, KJV
The oldest and most reliable Bible manuscripts do not include the words withing the brackets in the above scripture and most recognized Bible scholars do not recognize them as part of the original text.
The Revised Standard Version states:
“And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.” 1John 5:7-8, also see NIV, MEB, NEB, TLB, GNB, NAS for further proof.
thinker We who know that God is a title will never make Jesus a deity like His Father is. Jesus had a beginning. And Scriptures proof so.
Col. 1:15
Rev. 3:14
And by Jesus own word He said this in
John 17:5 And now O Father glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory I had with You before the world was. And in
John 1:1 In the beginning, notice in the beginning there was the Word and the Word was God and was with God.
verse 14 and the Word became flesh.
Even though some will say that it is Wisdom having been born, but using common sense will tell you that God always had wisdom.
Proverb 8:22-30
I read Chapter 9 and say again how ridiculous it is that it says Wisdom has built the house…
Peace and Love IreneQuote (david @ Dec. 21 2009,17:55) Out of all the title confusion trickery, it is with the word “god” that trinitarians make this argument the most. I found this article rather interesting: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009….dy.html
Even most trinitarian scholars will admit the truth of the scriptural use of the words rendered “god,” “gods,” and “God.”
The Trinitarian-written NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 tells us:
“In the language of the OT … rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title 'god' … or be called 'son of God'.” – footnote for Ps. 82:1.
And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this same study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king …, it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called 'gods' in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God's judgment as 'sons of the Most High'. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this…. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a 'god' and 'son of the Most High'.” – Vol. 3, p. 187.
The popular trinitarian scholar W. E. Vine tells us:
“The word [theos, 'god' or 'God'] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34″ – p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:
“Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart.”
And Barnes' Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:
The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,
'If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word “god” as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.' –Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. GOD – is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. – Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;…Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9…John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28….”
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem'; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, … x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” – p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:
Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power…. b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels…. c. angels Ps. 97:7…”
Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek. The very trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 –
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for 'God' or 'the gods'; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”
Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps…,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), – p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/”a god” about the same time the NT was written.
And the earliest Christians like Origen and others – – including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine – – also had this understanding for “a god.” And, as we saw above, many highly respected NT scholars of this century agree. (For example, Ernst Haenchen tells us in his commentary on the Gospel of John:
“It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ”. – John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.)
All of this shows the scriptural understanding (as well a
s the same understanding by Christian writers of the first centuries) of “god” as applied to angels and certain men who were trying to follow God or who were representatives or ambassadors for God.Just because it sounds strange to our modern ears is no reason to ignore the facts. And no reason to take advantage of that fact by claiming that only two understandings of the words theos and elohim are possible: “God” and “false gods.”
*****
The idea that anyone called by the word “god” is either “The God” or a “false god” is a Title Confusion Trick.
Do not be fooled.
People who support this title confusion trick like to randomly through out words like “polytheism” (A SCARE TACTIC) as though that were a Bible word. The worship of other gods is certainly condemned in the Bible, no question. Jesus directed worship to his Father. We do not worship other gods.
But make no mistake…..
The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”david
David,See my post earlier today inwhich I demonstrate that you were totally evasive regarding my original question. I asked you how Jesus Christ could be the Savior without being divine. You didn't even mention His title as Savior in your OP. You totally evaded my question.
TO ALL:
David goes on and on in his OP showing that the word “god” frequently is used of angels and human rulers and suggests that this is how we are to understand the NWT'S reading “a god” in John 1:1. But David ignores that verse 3 says Jesus created all things. How many angels or human “gods” created the universe? David goes on and on spewing out “facts” while ignoring context and thus fails to prove anything.
thinkerQuote (banana @ Dec. 25 2009,09:42) thinker We who know that God is a title will never make Jesus a deity like His Father is. Jesus had a beginning. And Scriptures proof so.
Hi Irene,We have been over this several times before. A “title” is what a person IS. Barack Obama has the title of President of the United States. Therefore, He IS the President of the U.S.
Jesus Christ has the title “God.” Therefore, He IS God. You suggest that titles mean nothing.
thinker
Quote (david @ Dec. 22 2009,13:42) But make no mistake…..
The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”
I disagree with your initial post as all the children of Israel, no matter their position, were called children of God or in other words gods. It was certainly not just limited to the king or to judges.Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 25 2009,10:13) Quote (banana @ Dec. 25 2009,09:42) thinker We who know that God is a title will never make Jesus a deity like His Father is. Jesus had a beginning. And Scriptures proof so.
Hi Irene,We have been over this several times before. A “title” is what a person IS. Barack Obama has the title of President of the United States. Therefore, He IS the President of the U.S.
Jesus Christ has the title “God.” Therefore, He IS God. You suggest that titles mean nothing.
thinker
A title means what it applies, but Jesus Christ will never be above the Father or equal to the Father. Yet you are and will apply Scripture that is a title only like in John 1:1. He is seated at the right hand of the Father, but not in place of the Father. Jesus had a beginning while our Heavenly Father did not, He always existed. They both have other names. And look in 1 Corinth. 15:28 ….so that God will be all in all. Does that mean that we are also going to have that title? Someone once told us, yes!!!!! I will leave that up to the beholder to figure out. There is no trinity and it is a man made doctrine and heed thinker, for in vain do they worship me, in
Math. 15:9 “And in vain do they worship Me,Teaching as the doctrine the commandment of men.”
Again it is Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian that first instituted it in A.D. 193.
I did give you a bunch of Scriptures, yet you ignore, ignore. It's up to you, my friend.
Peace and Love Irenehi kerwin
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?this his Christ saying it do you now believe ?
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 24 2009,15:13) Quote (banana @ Dec. 25 2009,09:42) thinker We who know that God is a title will never make Jesus a deity like His Father is. Jesus had a beginning. And Scriptures proof so.
Hi Irene,We have been over this several times before. A “title” is what a person IS. Barack Obama has the title of President of the United States. Therefore, He IS the President of the U.S.
Jesus Christ has the title “God.” Therefore, He IS God. You suggest that titles mean nothing.
thinker
Ashtoreth was called a G-d.
Judges are called G-d.
Angels are called G-d.
Rulers are called G-d.
Divine ones are called G-d.Therefore the above are G-d!
Your premise does not stand.
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 25 2009,08:11) hi kerwin
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?this his Christ saying it do you now believe ?
I believe God was speaking of all the members of the tribes of Israel since in the Law of Moses God did call all of them children of God which is another way to say gods. Jesus knew that and thus made his point.YHWH declaired Himself to be ECHAD.
Not Yachid.
Deuteronomy 6:4 Shema Yisra'El – YHWH Elohenu YHWH ECHAD.
Echad is not absolute singular, but a compound unity (not triune).
When a man and woman are married they become Basar Echad (we say “one flesh”).
Even the title Elohim is a plural word (yet always used in the singular tense when referring to YHWH).
“Let US create man in OUR image”.
YHWH is always described as ECHAD (compound unity) but never Yachid (absolute singular).
He says He will save us with His Right Arm:
Yeshayahu 52:10, ” YHWH hath made bare His holy arm in the eye’s of all the goyim; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of Elohenu (YAH-shua).”
Yeshayahu 59:16,” And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore His Arm brought salvation unto Him; and His righteousness it sustained Him.”
Yeshayahu 63:5,” And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore MINE OWN ARM brought salvation unto me (YAH-shua); and my fury, it upheld me.”
Psalm 98:1,” O sing unto YHWH a new song; for he hath done marvelous things: His Right Hand, and His Holy Arm, hath gotten Him the Victory”.
Yeshayahu 40:10,” Behold, YHWH Elohenu will come with strong hand, and His Arm shall rule for Him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.”
Who else said that… “My reward is with me”
Sh'mot 15:6,” Thy right hand , YHWH, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, YHWH, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.
Yeshayahu 51:5,” My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on Mine Arm shall they trust.”
Yeshayahu 53:1,” Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of YHWH been revealed?”
Psalm 110:1 YHWH said to Adonehu (my master), “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
Mattityahu 26:64 YAHshua said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Quote TO ALL: David wants you to forget that he started this thread due to my statement that Christ's title as Savior implies that He is Divine. Yet David does not even touch upon Christ's name as Savior in the above OP. Here is how it started.
–THINKER
THINKER, that is not why I started this thread. I make no mention of the “savior” thing in this thread. I started this thread because it is related though.
You do use the same logic for both:
2 (or more beings) cannot be called “savior” and be separate beings.and
2 (or more beings) cannot be called “god” and be separate beings.
Same logic.
But THINKER i'M wondering if you can just stick to this subject in this thread and that subject in that thread? And I'm wondering if you can attempt to answer the simple question I asked.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
