- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi All,
I said to Keith in the “Mike vs Francis” thread, page 118, 6th post from top:
Quote If there are others called elohim who are neither God Almighty nor false gods, then JUST being called “elohim” is not proof of being God Almighty. Keith responded:
Quote Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying…………. Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
These are Keith's own words, and were backed up by those Keith mentioned above. I don't think these guys should ever be able to bring up John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, or Titus 2:13 ever again as trinity “proof texts”. Keith's own words acknowledge that being called “god” is NOT proof that Jesus is God Almighty. If he is true to his word, then none of those above scriptures are any kind of “proof” that Jesus IS God Almighty, and they are only brought up over and over again as DIVERSIONS. And they MUST simply be diversions, because the only thing they prove is that Jesus may have been called “god”. And by Keith's own words, that is NOT proof that he is God Almighty.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 23 2011,12:32) Hi All, I said to Keith in the “Mike vs Francis” thread:
Quote If there are others called elohim who are neither God Almighty nor false gods, then JUST being called “elohim” is not proof of being God Almighty. Keith responded:
Quote Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying…………. Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
These are Keith's own words, and were backed up by those Keith mentioned above. I don't think these guys should ever be able to bring up John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, or Titus 2:13 ever again as trinity “proof texts”. Keith's own words acknowledge that being called “god” is NOT proof that Jesus is God Almighty. If he is true to his word, then none of those above scriptures are any kind of “proof” that Jesus IS God Almighty, and they are only brought up over and over again as DIVERSIONS. And they MUST simply be diversions, because the only thing they prove is that Jesus may have been called “god”. And by Keith's own words, that is NOT proof that he is God Almighty.
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,I believe you just figured it out! (Isaiah 9:6)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller,
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2011,20:32) Hi All, I said to Keith in the “Mike vs Francis” thread:
Quote If there are others called elohim who are neither God Almighty nor false gods, then JUST being called “elohim” is not proof of being God Almighty. Keith responded:
Quote Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying…………. Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
These are Keith's own words, and were backed up by those Keith mentioned above. I don't think these guys should ever be able to bring up John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, or Titus 2:13 ever again as trinity “proof texts”. Keith's own words acknowledge that being called “god” is NOT proof that Jesus is God Almighty. If he is true to his word, then none of those above scriptures are any kind of “proof” that Jesus IS God Almighty, and they are only brought up over and over again as DIVERSIONS. And they MUST simply be diversions, because the only thing they prove is that Jesus may have been called “god”. And by Keith's own words, that is NOT proof that he is God Almighty.
peace and love,
mike
MikeYes Mike, but my confession is based on context because what I am not saying is that when the scriptures call Jesus God that it doesn't mean that he isn't God.
When the scriptures call Jesus God they do not prove Jesus is not God do they Mike?
Why don't you pull up my statement in context Mike?
You have admitted yourself that “someone being called God can mean that he is God”.
Or do you disagree with this?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,09:43)
But for some reason I never hear you call him your god. All you ever do is claim that he is not god. What gives Mike?
I have told you this many times, Keith. This time I will post it in my new thread about points that need not be brought up again, just so we're all sure about my DIRECT and COMPLETE answer to your point. That way, you never need to bring this point up again, right?
Keith, if the word “god” meant to us today what it meant to the people of Biblical times, I would gladly call Jesus “my god”. But it doesn't. Today, we wouldn't refer to “Judge Judy” as “God Judy”. Today we wouldn't call the king of a country the “god” of that country. Today, if an angel brought us a message from God, we would tell people that an angel appeared to us. We would not tell them that “God” appeared to us.
But this is now, and that was then. Things were different then. Back then, they DID call judges “gods”. They DID call kings “gods”. They DID call angels “gods”. And back then, if someone called Jesus “god”, it would have been understood (ESPECIALLY by the Jews, who were STRICTLY monotheistic), that Jesus was being called a “leader” or “judge” or “ruler” or “mighty one” or “a vice regent of God”.
So back to your points:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,09:43)
But for some reason I never hear you call him your god.
This is because of the way we today understand the word “god”, as opposed to the way people in Biblical times understood the words “el”, “elohim” and “theos”. I do not want to confuse people by calling Jesus by the title of “god”, and having them think I am calling him the only true God. If I lived in the 1st century A.D., I would happily tell everyone that Jesus was my god. But I live in the 21st century A.D., and so I will say he is my Lord, my King, my Ruler, and my Savior………….but I will not say he is “my god”, because of the confusion it would create.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,09:43)
All you ever do is claim that he is not god.
What I do is SCRIPTURALLY show you every day that Jesus is not “God Almighty”. I understand that he is the only begotten Son of the only true God. I understand that he is the second most powerful being in existence. I understand that he is my Lord and my King, and all knees will bow to him. And knowing what WE both know about the words “elohim” and “theos”, I'm not really claiming that Jesus is not “A god”, or “A mighty one”. I'm claiming that he is not THE ALMIGHTY ONE.Keith, do you understand now?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,16:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2011,20:32) Hi All, I said to Keith in the “Mike vs Francis” thread:
Quote If there are others called elohim who are neither God Almighty nor false gods, then JUST being called “elohim” is not proof of being God Almighty. Keith responded:
Quote Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying…………. Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
These are Keith's own words, and were backed up by those Keith mentioned above. I don't think these guys should ever be able to bring up John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, or Titus 2:13 ever again as trinity “proof texts”. Keith's own words acknowledge that being called “god” is NOT proof that Jesus is God Almighty. If he is true to his word, then none of those above scriptures are any kind of “proof” that Jesus IS God Almighty, and they are only brought up over and over again as DIVERSIONS. And they MUST simply be diversions, because the only thing they prove is that Jesus may have been called “god”. And by Keith's own words, that is NOT proof that he is God Almighty.
peace and love,
mike
MikeYes Mike, but my confession is based on context because what I am not saying is that when the scriptures call Jesus God that it doesn't mean that he isn't God.
When the scriptures call Jesus God they do not prove Jesus is not God do they Mike?
Why don't you pull up my statement in context Mike?
You have admitted yourself that “someone being called God can mean that he is God”.
Or do you disagree with this?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,09:43)
you have admitted that “being called God can mean that one is God“.
Yes Keith, I said that. And seeing how YHVH is called “god” many times in scripture, I'd say it goes without saying, right? Deborah being called “god” doesn't mean she is NOT God, but it doesn't mean she IS, right? Same with Moses, certain angels, and the kings referred to in Psalm 45:6 and 138:1, right?So we have established that being called “god” doesn't mean you are NOT God Almighty, but it sure as the gospel doesn't mean you ARE God Almighty. There is no need to discuss this any further. Just as there is no need to discuss the scriptures where Jesus is called by the title of “god” any further, because they only prove that Jesus was called by a title that many others in scripture were also called by. And by your own words, “just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.” This point has been SOLIDLY established and agreed upon by BOTH OF US, so let's stop circling around John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8……………and move on to something that really DOES teach us that Jesus is God Almighty, okay?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 25 2011,10:14)
The book of Acts says that God exalted His servant Jesus. It does NOT say that Jesus remained servant after He was exalted.[/b]
Thank you Jack. I will now add this to my thread of things I don't need to discuss with you any further. You have admitted that the word IS properly translated as SERVANT.I agree that Acts 3:26 and 4:27 speak of Jesus on the earth. But Acts 3:13 and 4:30 specifically speak of the raised and exalted Jesus as still a SERVANT.
Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.
When was Jesus “glorified”? Wasn't it after he was exalted to God's right hand? Now I understand that you read this to say that once God glorified His servant, he ceased to be a servant. But there are no words in this scripture to even imply that, let alone PROVE it.Acts 4:30
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”This one is more cut and dry. This passage shows how these disciples not only pray to God Himself, saying, “Sovereign Lord, you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them”, but it also shows that they offer their prayer TO God Himself, but “through the name of your holy servant Jesus”.
This prayer was made way after Jesus had been exalted and glorified, yet they STILL refer to him as “your holy SERVANT”.
Enough said?
Mike
BTW I think this is a good idea, so I will create a thread for all the straw men arguments you make and the questions that I have answered so you won't keep bringing them up again.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 23 2011,18:23) Yes Keith, I said that. And seeing how YHVH is called “god” many times in scripture, I'd say it goes without saying, right? Deborah being called “god” doesn't mean she is NOT God, but it doesn't mean she IS, right? Same with Moses, certain angels, and the kings referred to in Psalm 45:6 and 138:1, right?
But if Deborah or Moses sits in the Throne of God ruling as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords over the Universe then I would say that they are God.If the Prophets and Apostles like Isaiah, John, Paul, Peter, Thomas and the hundreds of Forefathers some from the 1st century claim he is their God then that is confirmation that he is God.
“Mike, is someone less than God in charge of the Universe right down to the very elements including the atoms that holds all things together?“
“Has God turned over infinite authority, power and the Universe to a finite being?“
WJ
Crap! You posted at the exact same time I did, making my comment come AFTER your other post, and therefore it seemingly makes no sense!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,11:59)
But if Deborah or Moses sits in the Throne of God ruling as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords over the Universe then I would say that they are God.
Hi Keith,But would you still say they were “God” if you knew that they were only temporarily GRANTED BY GOD to sit in HIS Throne with Him?
Once “God”, ALWAYS “God”, right? Can Jesus BE God because his God has GRANTED him to sit in His Throne for a while, after which time he will rule from the throne of God's SERVANT, David?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,11:59)
“Mike, is someone less than God in charge of the Universe right down to the very elements including the atoms that holds all things together?“
Yes Keith. The scriptures teach that Jesus has been GIVEN BY HIS GOD, the power and authority to rule, judge, and destroy the enemies. Why would you ONLY take the part that says “Jesus rules” into account without reconciling it against the part that say HIS GOD GAVE him this power for a limited time, after which he will hand the Kingdom back to his God?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 26 2011,11:59)
“Has God turned over infinite authority, power and the Universe to a finite being?“
Where do you get “infinite power”? Jesus' power is, and has always been, limited to the amount of power his God, who is the ONLY One with “infinte power”, gives him.mike
From “attn wj”, page 8:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,12:30) 2. Keith, we both agree that there is only one true LIVING GOD. Is Jesus the Son OF this one true LIVING GOD? YES or NO? Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,12:24)
Yes.“Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying………….
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.”
Did WJ really say this? Is this the end of trinity discussion? Have I just stepped into another dimension?
So, “I [WJ] are [am] saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.”
Could I perhaps get the thread and thread page from where this supposed “quote” is taken from. I have to read this with my own eyes. I am not sure I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Before I go on a 25 page post on the ramifications of what WJ has supposedly said, I would really like to see the quote in context, because it seems impossible to me to believe that he would say what appears to be said with the meaning that appears to be there.
david.
I've read this thread. WJ makes no attempt to back out of that statement, or to even explain it. I'd really like to see the context.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 27 2011,04:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 23 2011,18:23) Yes Keith, I said that. And seeing how YHVH is called “god” many times in scripture, I'd say it goes without saying, right? Deborah being called “god” doesn't mean she is NOT God, but it doesn't mean she IS, right? Same with Moses, certain angels, and the kings referred to in Psalm 45:6 and 138:1, right?
But if Deborah or Moses sits in the Throne of God ruling as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords over the Universe then I would say that they are God.If the Prophets and Apostles like Isaiah, John, Paul, Peter, Thomas and the hundreds of Forefathers some from the 1st century claim he is their God then that is confirmation that he is God.
“Mike, is someone less than God in charge of the Universe right down to the very elements including the atoms that holds all things together?“
“Has God turned over infinite authority, power and the Universe to a finite being?“
WJ
Yet you have a double standard WJ.
You do not say that those who sit on Christ's throne are Christ.You see, Christ sits with the Father on his throne and we can sit with Christ on his.
Quote (david @ Mar. 05 2011,15:14) “Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying…………. Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.”
Did WJ really say this? Is this the end of trinity discussion? Have I just stepped into another dimension?
So, “I [WJ] are [am] saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.”
Could I perhaps get the thread and thread page from where this supposed “quote” is taken from. I have to read this with my own eyes. I am not sure I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Before I go on a 25 page post on the ramifications of what WJ has supposedly said, I would really like to see the quote in context, because it seems impossible to me to believe that he would say what appears to be said with the meaning that appears to be there.
david.
Well thank you David for appreciating the magnitude of this WJ statement that I worked diligently for months to arrive at.Do you really want the context of it? Click Here for the thread. It is 179 pages long, and those pages are filled with my best efforts to get not only Keith, but also Francis, Jack, and Simply Forgiven to all admit the very simple scriptural fact that being called “elohim” or “theos” did not make that one “God Almighty”.
You wanna know the kicker? When they finally admitted this, they all told me it's what they've been saying all along!
Anyway, it's good to be acknowledged and appreciated, so thanks.
The best part is, now, whenever he is cornered about another trinity “non-proof”, he can no longer fall back on his staple of “Oh yeah? But he's the God who was with God in the beginning”!
Because 1:1 holds no more “get out of jail free” magic for WJ. It is merely a case of one who was with THE theos in the beginning being called by a title that many other vice-regents of God were also called by.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
