- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Baker @ Jan. 13 2011,00:28) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 11 2011,07:58) Quote (Baker @ Jan. 10 2011,12:10) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 08 2011,07:53) meant to say george
SF I just made a post in Mike vs, Francis tread. Look it up. God is a title…..and yes, there are other Gods1Cr 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Peace Irene
Lol George.Were they really gods?
This is my point, that God is not a title, but a identity.A ROLE fullfilled.
Like you cant have the title of “Father” if you do not have a Child.
You must FULLFILL the ROLE, IN ORDER TO BE TRUELY IDENTIFIED AS THAT TITLE.
so if one calls himself a father without a son, he is either CRAZY or A LIAR.ITs as simple as that.
Ceaser was called a God, does that truely make him a God?
Is the pope a father? yet he is even called “holy father”.
Are the priests fathers?
Is George Washington really the father of our nation?I didn't say they were gods, they were mighty men, that is what the “word” god means.
Georg
Ok im glad we agree in this!
but the understanding that its a man-made title given to people who are not really “fathers” at all.in reality when it comes to the term “Father” means when one has a Son. Right?
so lets be realistic, is the Pope really a Father? he has no offspring, yet soceity has changed the meaning to the term to include that he is the FAther or leader of a belief or a people.
So now Father is a equated term to Ruler? but its a fact that the person rules, but its a false that he is really a father.
Definitions of terms change alot!
But its the way you USE the Term is when you understand the interpretation of it.
For example in Deut.32 The only True God mentions other “strange gods”. but were they REALLY gods? or imposed ones?
Now the fallacy im trying to corrrect is that Mike states that “Jesus is a God amoung many gods, the second most powerful being”
Irene agreed with these terms, so i assumed you also did.
But the Fact is that many that were called gods, were not gods at all, and the fact that they were mighty at any point or in a position to rule, was because God permitted it.But when it comes to Christ, he is not a “god amoung gods” because he is called God as a identity according to his character and works!
and he is not the “second most powerful being” because the bible doesnt hold positions of 1,2,3 or fourth, but a Almighty that holds all positions and roles and power.My point is that for one to be called “god” he must fulfill the role of it. Jesus fulfils those works in his character, ethics, and works.
SF
You are anything but simple; what are all the words that you made for?
Yes, a father is a man that produced a child; that is why God is called the Father of Jesus.
Now we know that the Father is God, Jesus on the other hand is “A” god.
Just as the priests are “a” father of their congregation.
Just as G. Washington is “a” father of this nation.
Now if you agree to that, than you can say, “WE” agree.Georg
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 10 2011,03:55) What Jesus was saying is that God Himself called mere human beings “gods”, so why are you flipping out because I said I'm God's Son? “God” is simply a title D. It means “ruler”. And Jesus didn't even go as far as saying he WAS a “ruler”, only that he was the Son of THE RULER.
You say these people who God Himself referred to as “gods” are “false gods”. What does that mean, D? Were these people, to whom the word of God came, trying to get people to worship them? In what way were they “false gods”? Did they call themselves “gods”………or was it God who called them “gods”. And did God use the term “false gods”? If not, then why would you?
D, what does “God of gods” mean? Jehovah (and NOT Jesus), is given this title in scripture. What does it mean? If there were no others with the title of “god” at all, then “God OF gods” would be senseless, don't you think?
peace and love,
mike
Mike,You have some good stuff there.
Let's consider this a little more.
Please bear with me. I may be preaching to the choir, but your post inspired me to elaborate “a little.”
John 10:33-36
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?The opponents of Jesus Christ were accusing JC of calling himself God. JC did no such thing. He makes that clear in verse 36
Culturally, the enemies of JC could have understood his statement in light of the cultural norms. The son of a father had some equal rights as the father. Ie, say in carrying out some business transactions, for instance.
But more to the point,
God calls those “unto whom the word of God came” gods. Why?
Who are they?
II Peter 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
the word of God came unto the holy men of God.
Ie, prophets first and foremost.
the word of God came to Moses, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc.
It came also to Peter, Jesus Christ, Paul, John, etc.
The God, calls his holy men gods because of their intimate relationship with God. They spoke what God told them to speak.
However, holy does not mean perfect. They needed correction at times as well. David did, Moses did. Aaron and Miriam did. Peter did, Paul did.
When Jethro corrected Moses' handling of the people's problems and issues, men of good report were assigned the responsibility of handling matters as God would. That is, in accordance with the law that God was instructing the people by way of the ministry of Moses.
Thus, those who were given responsibility BEFORE GOD to rule and judge among the people were referred to as “gods”
Why? because they represented the judgements of God to the people.
In the Psalm 82 God corrects the error of the appointed rulers of Israel.
1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.They made mistakes, but God corrects them by way of the ministry of the Psalmist.
He tells them what they are to be blamed for and that they need to correct their ways and how to correct their ways.
God was not dumping them, he was correcting their errors. He must have judged them to be faithful and worthy of his loving correction.
Oh, that we should walk and live faithfully before God that He judges us faithful enough for him to lovingly correct us where we err.
Jesus Christ claimed to be a son of God.
barley
Hi barley,
How have you been? Blessed I hope.
You made a good post. I've been dealing with this “god” issue more in depth in the Mike vs. Francis discussion thread…………and in the debate itself. I hope you join me over there. I was about to bring up Psalm 82 over there, but thought I'd see how they responded to Judges 5:8 first.
peace and love to you oatmeal,
miket8,
Here you go, the right thread for my question to you:Tell me why you think that those that were told 'ye are theos' back in Psalms were told that, and Paul and Barnabas were not told that they were theos.
Psalm 82:6 uses the word is Elohim. Elohim mostly refers to the one true God, but can be applied to others.
Then Jesus quotes that same verse, and in the Greek it uses the word 'theos', which is also mostly used for the one true God, but obviously not in this case. So we at least have a good example of a different use for 'elohim' and 'theos'.Futher,
Psalm 82:1
A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the “gods”.According to Strongs and other sources, the word 'gods' refers to magistrates, judges, and others who have positions of authority and rule.
That is why YHWH is called THE Theos and Elohim, because he is the ultimate ruler and authority.
The point I have made all along is that there are different applications with theos and elohim, so arguing that Jesus is elohim or theos and therefore YHWH has no justification.
This is why I am always quick to see through faulty interpretations of any verse that implicates Christ as THE Theos or Elohim. Especially when men and heavenly angels can also be called by the same.
This whole argument that Christ is God is as silly as arguing that we are God.
After all men can be called theos and elohim, and we can partake in divine nature too.People who make such arguments about Jesus being YHWH or THE God, surely lack in understanding.
And it is strange that people argue Jesus is God using arguments that equally apply to men and angels, but do not include the latter.In the end, their arguments are based on their own understanding and is defended with bias and pride.
So, t8, the elohim/theos that men are called in Psalms did not have divine nature, yet they were called elohim/theos and meant because they were in authority. So can you show me any scripture that says that believers will be called theos in the future, after partaking of divine nature? Can you show me any scripture where Jesus or His apostles called any man a theos who believed in Him, during Jesus' lifetime on earth or after His resurrection?
I will try and spell things out a bit more from now on Kathi and not assume that you know what I am talking about. It should lead to less misunderstanding.
I am not saying we are going to be called 'theos'. Where have I ever said that?
It may be the case it may not. Remember, what we will become is a mystery, but all we really know is that we will be like him (Jesus) and he will call us brothers. So what he is, we will become, (in type).Anyway, it is clear that you have missed my point entirely and probably have every other time I have discussed this. So here is a clearer explanation.
The point I make is that if men can be called theos and elohim and if men can partake in divine nature, then what excuse does anyone have left for calling Jesus God for the same reason? So if Jesus is called theos and if he existed with divine nature before partaking of flesh, then understand that he is not YHWH/God because of these points.
Trinitarians in particular give these reasons for Jesus being God and ignore the same association with men and angels. Yet somehow Jesus is God and men are not. NOTE: I am not saying men should be God/YHWH, Kathi, but why is Jesus and not others, when they are both called theos?
Now I hope I never see you like the Trinitarians who post here, use these reasons to argue that Jesus is YHWH. If I do, then I will only confirm to me (at least) that you have lost the plot.
I would like to remind Kathi of the words of her brother Keith:
“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.”
Kathi, that is also what t8 is trying to tell you. Being called by the title “theos” does not mean you are THE Theos.
Thanks guys but I did know that theos doesn't always mean God. Of course all other 'theos' were not begotten that way…as theos, just the only Begotten God, and all others mentioned as 'theos/elohim' didn't have divine nature like HE was born with aside from His Father. And also, all other 'theos' mentioned, aside from the Father, did not create the heavens and the earth. So, excuse me while I cannot tolerate it when one ignores these things and puts Him closer to the all other designated theos than one like the Father. The others were designated that way for earthly temporary assignment because they were a judge or magistrate or prophet or because they were exalted wrongly by man or themselves, i.e. satan.
t8, if I am demonstrating pride in myself, forgive me, I only desire to show pride for my Jesus who is My Lord and My God, just like Thomas said.
I'm so proud of my Jesus and I hate it when people deny Him the honor of His majesty as their creator and God with His Father.
Forget being called 'the' Theos…both the Father and the Son are 'MY' Theos.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2011,21:11)
Of course all other 'theos' were not begotten that way
And “begotten” means “brought into existence by a father”, Kathi. So while I agree that Jesus is the highest of the “many gods and many lords” in existence (NEXT TO the Father, of course), “begotten” is a BIG distinction BETWEEN him and our only UNBEGOTTEN God, the Father.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2011,21:11)
And also, all other 'theos' mentioned, aside from the Father, did not create the heavens and the earth.
Nor did Jesus. (Acts 4)Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2011,21:11)
Forget being called 'the' Theos…both the Father and the Son are 'MY' Theos.
Kathi, is your last “Theos” meant to be plural? Because you are saying that “both the Father and the Son are 'MY' GODS, right?Mike,
Quote And “begotten” means “brought into existence by a father”, Kathi. So while I agree that Jesus is the highest of the “many gods and many lords” in existence (NEXT TO the Father, of course), “begotten” is a BIG distinction BETWEEN him and our only UNBEGOTTEN God, the Father. Can 'begotten' mean to 'bring forth?'
Mike,
Quote Nor did Jesus. (Acts 4)
Did the Son of David exist in the beginning with God?
Did the Son of God exist in the beginning with God?Mike,
Quote Kathi, is your last “Theos” meant to be plural? Because you are saying that “both the Father and the Son are 'MY' GODS, right? It is correct either way…either to express two separate persons who are each a God or two separate persons who are interdependently relating as one God.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 26 2011,04:50) Mike, Quote Nor did Jesus. (Acts 4)
Did the Son of David exist in the beginning with God?
Did the Son of God exist in the beginning with God?
Unlike the son of David, the son of God existed as the Word that was with God. Many of the second century apostles described his origin as being begotten as like a fire coming from a fire with no lessening of the original fire, and also as the first work of the Father, begotten before creation. Here are some snippets from Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D):he was begotten out of the Father by an act of will, just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word, yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word in us, when we give it out, and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled, but remains the same, and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled…
Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this kind are concerned, but not concerning the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son, who came forth from Him, and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to him, …
Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten…
But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works…
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2011,14:11) Thanks guys but I did know that theos doesn't always mean God. Of course all other 'theos' were not begotten that way…as theos, just the only Begotten God, and all others mentioned as 'theos/elohim' didn't have divine nature like HE was born with aside from His Father. And also, all other 'theos' mentioned, aside from the Father, did not create the heavens and the earth. So, excuse me while I cannot tolerate it when one ignores these things and puts Him closer to the all other designated theos than one like the Father. The others were designated that way for earthly temporary assignment because they were a judge or magistrate or prophet or because they were exalted wrongly by man or themselves, i.e. satan.
That doesn't make him YHWH Kathi.Surely someone had to be first after God, and that is who Jesus is. He is not that which he came from.
We obviously realise Jesus importance regarding being first and God creating all things through him. But we don't take it beyond the truth that there is one God the Father. No, we place the son in his rightful place as one who is at the right hand of God, and who is the true image of God.
We don't need to justify our belief by adding something like, 'there is one God the Father and the Son'. For some reason something compels you to though.
But I will say this, it is interesting to see the thought processes of one who departs from the truth that there is one God the Father.
It is like watching development of the Trinity doctrine, but instead of centuries it has been a matter of months and thus not only observable, but a demonstration of how flawed a person's doctrine can get when they decide to depart scripture and take matters into their own hands, as happened many centuries ago.This process of departure is no always this observable. Here we have it all in writing and in a short time frame.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2011,11:49) Mike, Quote And “begotten” means “brought into existence by a father”, Kathi. So while I agree that Jesus is the highest of the “many gods and many lords” in existence (NEXT TO the Father, of course), “begotten” is a BIG distinction BETWEEN him and our only UNBEGOTTEN God, the Father. Can 'begotten' mean to 'bring forth?'
Yes Kathi. Strong says: “bring forth (as in child birth)”.Kathi, WHY? Why do you try SOOOOOO hard to change or twist what the scriptures clearly teach us? Jesus was begotten and THEREBY became the SON of God. Now………….what exactly is so hard about this? BECAUSE OF his begetting, he BECAME God's SON. (Psalm 2:7) Why would you not just accept the CLARITY of this fact? Why try to imagine some other meaning of the begetting of Jesus when the end result of him becoming the Son of God is right there in the same exact verse?
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2011,11:50) Mike, Quote Nor did Jesus. (Acts 4)
Did the Son of David exist in the beginning with God?
Did the Son of God exist in the beginning with God?
1. The prayer in Acts 4 was made AFTER Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of his God. AFTER he had be GIVEN all authourity by his God. THIS is the Jesus that Peter and John called “God's Holy Servant Jesus Christ”. THIS is the Jesus that they prayed THROUGH, making clear he was NOT the One they prayed TO – you know, the ONE who created the heavens, the earth, and EVERYTHING in them – INCLUDING this Jesus through whom they prayed.2. You can't just divide Jesus up depending on the scripture as it suits you. You can't say “the human nature of Jesus” said “the Father is greater than I”, but “the God nature of Jesus” claimed to be Jehovah in 8:58. Both scriptures are quoting the EXACT SAME PERSON – Jesus Christ.
Kathi, was Jesus God Almighty in the flesh on earth or not? YES or NO?
You can't have it BOTH ways. He either WAS or he WASN'T.
peace,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
