Search Members

[Elohim]

Quote

Thats commendable.

Thank you

Quote

The other example is in John 20:24-29 when Thomas said” My Lord and my God (HO-THEOS). This example will be disscused later.   Coundn't find this discussion.

I dont think that it has been mentioned yet, at least not in great detail. I mentioned it with referance to those that are described as Ho-theos. As i said i am more than willing to discuss this trinitarian favourite.

Quote

Are they any less saved than yourself? If they have a relationship with Jesus and believe Him to be God, are they a lesser christian than yourself? Why feel sorry for them?

When, please tell me did i say that they were any less saved than me?
Salvation (which means to be preserved, protection) is attained by placing faith in Jesus name, that he is the Son of God and the Christ-Messiah.

Jesus demonstrated this with the thief on the Cross:
“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.  
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” -Luke 23:42,43

It is interesting that you talk about having a relationship with Jesus. While putting faith in Jesus as our savior provides salvation(his protection) does that equate to having a relantionship with him?

Many Christians put faith in his name, get “Saved” and leave it at that, they then claim to have a relationship with him.

Faith means “conviction of the truth of anything, belief” (strongs)
Relating to God:

1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ

relating to Christ:

1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God.

Would you ever expect to form a relantionship with someone just because you believed some thing about them? If you are married, no doubt when you met your wife you had to get to know her, to understand her ways and form a close bound between yourselfs. A relationship with Jesus needs to be developed the same way, we can do that by drawing close in prayer and also by studying his word. I am sure you will agree many so called christians do not do that.

Psa 119:66 “Teach  me good  judgment  and knowledge  for I have believed thy commandments.” (Thoughtout the book of psalms we see the same theme, it is a beautiful book)

Likewise with those that hold the Trinitarian view, I never said they were not saved.

Having a relantionship with someone means that we will have come to an accurate knowledge of who that person is, you cannot have a proper relantionship with someone when you believe they are something they are not.

An example of this is within a marriage, the husband cheats, the wife finds out and often the feelings are they dont know who the person is they were married to, the relationship was built on lies and the person they thought they loved was not after all that person. The relationship is fake.

John ilustrates those in the first century who thought they had a good relationship with God:
“Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.  

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.  

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.  

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” -John 8:41-44

Without bashing your views on the trinity without scriptual referance can you have a “Proper” relationship with God and Jesus by believing they are something they are not?. Jesus reflected ALL the glory to his father throughout his ministry which provoked him to say:
“It is Yahweh your God your God that you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service”.(Matt 4:10)  

So in summary i feel sorry for trinitarians NOT because they are any less “saved”(only God knows that) but because they are in bondage that they can neither biblicaly prove or explain. They have a desire to please God but instead do the opposite of what Jesus commanded: Take the Glory away from God.

Quote

Its interesting that God is someone you can understand and follow “as a child” because I personally believe understanding of the Bible's essential truths is not the sole domain of the mensa-going, technically-minded.

Thats good we agree for the bible says:
“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25 KJV)

To be as “babes” we need to strip ourselves of man made philosophey and teachings, approaching God as innocent children.

“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 3:1-2 KJV)

When coming to know God we need to put our pre concieved ideas and knowledge of wise men away, that we are able to accept the message and draw close to Him.

Once we have done so the results are an end to childish babbiling of men:
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. But shun profane and vain babblings” (2 Timothy 2:15-16 KJV)

Quote

Actually I believe these truths are extractable by almost anyone – including children. What would a 10 year old think that Jesus is after reading: Jn 20:28, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 1:8, Ti 2:13, Isa 9:6? Pretty obvious to me.

He would conclude that Jesus is GOD.

But you and i know that taking scriptures out of context like that is not reaveling the truth, we must ALWAYS search for context, understanding and harmony with the entire word. This is a classic example of how the trinity was developed and how still they pick scriptures to paint their view.

If you want to play this game lets Go:

If a 10 year old was to read these what would they think?.

Gen 32:24-30, Gen 19:8, Jdg 1:19.

They would think that a man can wrestle with God and that in order to beat man God had to “pop” his thigh out, for “it was nearly daylight”

They would think that it is ok for a father to give his vigin daughters to homosexuals, to do with as they wish.

They would think that God “could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”

As you can see by using YOUR example of picking scriptures we come to complety the wrong vi
ew, moreover we look foolish.

Quote

By the way, the username you chose is a plural noun – and it's a little blasphemous to use that of yourself, dont you think?

I have been over this many times with many people, Strictly speaking the word God is a TITLE, God in the OT, not a name of the almighty. Only Yahweh (the father) is ever referred to as almighty God.

The fact that it is a title of descriptive power is seen by it's usage to others.

Man, angels & Satan are all called god (Elohim) or Gods in the bible and are even accompanied by other nouns, giving them a superlative meaning.

In the OT God is taken from the word Elohim, which comes from EL & ELOAH. Elohim is indeed a plural, however only to highlight his excellence and majesty. As Elohim is derived from EL its meaning would be “Strong One” or “foremost one.

Is the bible blaspheming against itself by giving it to others?.

Since it is used of men, angels and even satan, i can NOT be accused of blasphemy by using it.

If i was to call myself  by God's personal name, Yahweh, then and only then might you have some basis.

BTW: i choose to use it because i like it, and because even though others are given this title due to their respective postition, when it is used of God it highlights that he is the “Strongest” and Foremost of all”

Regards
Elohim

[Elohim]

Phew…This is one long thread. I have been wanting to post, however only felt that it was fair to read all the posts first.

I would like to congratulate T8 for his Trinity writings and for his honest approach to the subject. I am a member on another christian site and there is a folder on the trinity there, unfortunality i have been banned from posting on the subject of the “Trinity”, the Holy Spirit and Jesus in that folder because i present scriptual proof to the contary.

 

John 1:1 “In the beginging was the Word and the word was with God and the word was God”.

I enjoyed Global's post on this subject, he admitted that he was not an expert on the subject and thus relied on the common translation by “well respected scholars”. Having studied the text myself i can say that from a simple lingustic translation “the word was God” or “Theos” could rightly be translated God or a god.

This is a face value rendering, using simple grammer  there is nothing wrong with the translation. However it is very misleading to strictly define it in this way.

When translating from the original text we use a number of methods. The use of articles or lack of, word order and a sense of the surronding grammer help us to come to a correct decsion.

As has already been mentioned Theos is a term applied not only to God, but also, to men, angels and kings. Ho-theos (literally: The God) is applied to almost exclusively to Yahweh, the almighty, the creator. However it is of note that on 2 occasions HO-THEOS (the God) is applied to others.

2 cor 4-6 refers to SATAN as HO-THEOS (from the context it is rightly reduced to god, rather than God).
The other example is in John 20:24-29 when Thomas said” My Lord and my God (HO-THEOS). This example will be disscused later. We know that theos is not exclusively talking of the almighty, we can also see that scholars use word order and context, EVEN when confronted by the word HO-THEOS which at face value should be THE GOD.

Literally the greek text reads like this:

“in the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word”.
Translators must supply capitals as needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god”, since this must identify with the almighty God with whom the word was.

While capitilizing the word “god” in the second instance is NOT ALWAYS WRONG, the reason being that theos is redered God in other places, HOWEVER it is MISLEADING, when we consider the context and word order.

We have 3 options as to how we can translate what John said:

“The word was God”
“The word was devine”
“the word was a god”

The last is particulary poor and can be discounted, although there are other “gods” it is unlikley he would have had this in mind. So we are left with 2 possible translations, Jesus was God or he was “divine” sharing the same “nature” as God.

John was by using “Ho theos” in the first instance and “theos” in the second indicates that he (Jesus) was not God, he clearly seperates the 2, we have THE GOD and god (theos- Scholars admit the second occurance as more of a descriptive). One like God an image of God. Using God in the second instance is just as wrong as using “a god”.

So while theos is used of the second god, trinitarians and scholars alike rightfully claim that “a god” is wrong and a bit of a simplistic glance at the text when considering word order and context. So if it was meant to mean “a god” it would totally contraidct the biblical teaching of one God that the Jews held.

Using “a god” is a mistake, although it is an easy conclusion to make because of the context and that the text literally says theos, we cant however make this fit correctly with Jewish thinking. Likewise rendering theos as THE GOD (as trinitarians do) when comparing context and word order is an absolute digrace and utterly misleading.

In both cases the final result is based on theology. It is irksome to scholars on both sides that the grammar is ambiguous in a point that is seen by both to be crucial. And we can argue about it until the cows come home but no one will ever be convinced.

So we are left with “the word was devine”. Divine is perfectly acceptable. It's an equative clause….the Logos is everthing that Qeos is…..divine!

Some trinatarians will point out that if John had simply meant divine he would have use the word “theios”. As can be seen it comes from the word “theos”. However it is a very rarely used word, and is only used in conjunction with another word for example “divine power” or “divine nature”, so is void when used on it's own. In addition it does not impart the full and complete reflection Jesus was to His God, which was the whole point John was trying to make.

In addition “theios” was a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks, it does not convey the relansonship between Jesus and God and is used by the greeks of ANY spiritually higher creature, unlike the glorious reflectio Jesus was. The word just does not do justice, hence its absence.

I know Global was pushing the following point:

If Jesus is “divine” he must be God.

That is a typical trinitarian reasoning, divine is anything that comes from God, Jesus came into exsistence by his father, he was begat from him as his “firstborn” son, and so is divine, we can say that angels and any spiritual creature are divine.

To be divine or having the same “nature” as God does NOT make that one God, Jesus was the “image of God”, his perfect refelection sharing his qualities and purpose, which is why he could state that “he that has seen me has seen the father”. Likewise “man” was made in God's image, sharing the same qualities as him, those of forgiveness, love, understanding, and patience. Any thing that comes FROM God must share the same nature as the him, it no way makes him that person.

When we view John 1:1 and other “problem” scriptures in the correct light there is a comfort in knowing that the bible does not contradict itself, any and ALL trinitarian passges can be proven wrong when view them in line with the rest of the Holy word, which always must be done. I have yet to find a trinitarian that can explain without looking foolish any scriptures that disagree with their view.

Just one more note on John 1:1, there is a quite reasonable view that the “Word” in John is not Jesus. If anyone wants to know more i can explain.

I feel sorry for trinitarians in that they are bound to a doctrine that causes them to claim its a “mystery”. That is not my God, mine is someone i can understand and follow as a child.

Because of the confusing state the “trinity” leaves the scriptures, they often have to resort to man made explanations and circular reasoning.

Some clear examples of this are:

Trinitarian: Yahweh is saviour, so therfore Jesus must be God-Yahweh.

This, along with the Alpha and omega statement use human man made reasoning:

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in scriptures, it should never be hastily concluded that they must be the same person.
To show the foolishness of such reasoning the trinitarians should conclude that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “King of Kings”.

We should always consider the context where the same expression occurs.

So do the scriptures conclude that Jesus is God, because of the description “Saviour”?.

The answer is NO.

Yahweh is repeatadly refered to in scripture as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior”.
Titus 1:3,4 speaks of “God our
savior”, and then both “God and Christ Jesus our savior”. So both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship saying: “God, our savior THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord” (trough=by means of). (see also Acts 13:23)

At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (Moh-shi'a, rendered “savior” or “Deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel a judge in Isreal, but that certainly did not make Othniel Yahweh, did it?. A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Yahweh alone was the one who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Isreal; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surronding nations. Their was no need for Jesus to be a savior at that time, as he had not made his sacrafice.

Jesus is the savior in respect to the world, by paying the ransom, even though, this is all done by God using  Jesus as the “chief agent and savior”. (Acts 5:31)

When jesus was on earth Yahweh was his savior, supporting and strenghtening him to maintain integrity through his strenuous trials.-Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8.

Along with his role as Savior, Yahweh was also the “Repurchaser”(Isa 49:26; 60:16). In the past he redeemed his people Isreal from captivity. In delivering christians from sin bondage, he does the repurchasing through his son Jesus Christ.(1 John 4:14).

Accordingly Jesus can rightly be called “our savior”, even though he perfoms the salvation as an agent of Yahweh. (tit 1:4- 2 Peter1:11).

The name jesus, given to God's son by angelic direction, means “Yahweh is salvation”, for, said the angel: “He will save people from their sins” (Matt 1:21;Luke 1:31). This name points out that Yahweh is the source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus. For this reason we find the father & son spoken together in connection with salvation. -Tit 2:11-13; 3:3-6

Salavation is provided by Yahweh through Jesus Christ for “All sorts of men”(1 Tim 4:10) He saves them from sin and death (Rom 8:2, from babylon the Great (Re 18:2,4) from this world under Satans control (John 17:16; Col 1:13), and from destruction and everlasting death (Re 7:14-17; 21:3,4). A “Great Crowd” is shown attributing salvation to God and to the Lamb.

The ransom sacrafice is the basis for salvation, and as King and everlasting High Priest, Christ Jesus has the authority and power “To save completely those who are approaching God through him” (Heb 7:23-25; Re 19:16) He is “a savior of this body”, the congregation of his annoited followers, and also of all who exercise faith in him-Eph 5:23; 1 Jo 4:14; Jo 3:16,17.

Regards
Elohim

[Author]

Posts