Search Members

[global]

REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF PART III

You said:

I have met many Christians who believe in the Trinity over the years that explain to me that Jesus appears to be inferior to the Father because he emptied himself of his former power and glory when he became a man. This is how they rationalise those verses that speak clearly of the inferiority of Christ compared with God. However such people have never explained why Jesus still appears in the same submission to his Father and even calls his Father his God in the Book of Revelation even while he is back in heavenly glory. Anyway it appears from what you have said that Jesus is inferior to God regardless of location

I reply:

We are not talking about what many people you have met believe. We are talking about official Catholic doctrine.

I think I have made it clear that in Catholic doctrine Jesus is not inferior to the Father, but has voluntarily submitted his will to that of the Father’s.

Jesus calls the Father his God in the Book of Revelation because Jesus is fully man even after the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, and all men have the Father as their God.

Whether you agree with this or not, do you now agree that your understanding of Trinitarian belief as you originally wrote it was incorrect?

You said:

Isaiah 44:6
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

Revelation 1:7-8
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The first thing I would like to say is that in the preceeding Revelation verse we see the following:
6 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

So the context of these verses is that Jesus Father is also his God. Now if you look at verse 7 you will see that Jesus is referred to as ‘he’ and in verse 8 the reference is ‘I’, which is not a logical construction if you are talking about the same person. So if the verses were talking about the same person why does this difference exist? If I use such construction in a sentence it doesn’t make sense if I am talking about the same person.

I reply:

The difference exists because the writer of the book is St. John. He is speaking in verse 7 and refers to Jesus as “he”.

In verse 8 he is using reported speech to repeat the words of Jesus and so uses “I” . We know it is reported speech because it is followed by the words “saith the Lord”

e.g T8 said

“he” doesn’t believe in the Trinity.
“I” don’t believe in the Trinity says T8.

I do not believe it is the Father who is speaking in verse 8 because in verse 7 John has already identified the person who is coming as Jesus.

The speaker in verse 8 then identifies himself as the one who will come, ergo the speaker in verse 8 is Jesus.

I see no reason to believe that it is the Father speaking here apart from a doctrinal unwillingness to accept the title Almighty being applied to Jesus.

You then speculate about the title “Alpha and Omega” my only reply to this is that logically there is only one First and one Last. Everything else is in between.

You said:

Revelation 22:6
And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
But then verse 16 says it is Jesus who sent the angel

Well Revelation 1:1 answers this.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

According to the order, we have God > Jesus > Angel > John. So it is certain that the angel is Christ’s angel, but it is also certain that the angel is also God’s angel.

I reply:

Verse 1 of revelation is not so clear. Due to the way the language is used it is not exactly clear who the parties involved are. The book is a revelation to John from God, so when it says “which God gave him”
Is the “him” referring to John or to Jesus?

Furthermore there is no reason to assume that in the first part “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him” the word God does not refer to Jesus.

It could then read as “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him (John)”

Finally, the last line: “. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John”

It is not clear if the “He” of that line is the Father or Jesus, it could be interpreted as either.

If it is the Father, how do we reconcile it with 22:16 where it is identified as Jesus? If it is Jesus how do you reconcile it with 22:6 where it says it is the Lord God?

Your attempt to say that it is the Father who sends the angel indirectly through the Son is of course a possible explanation, but there is no indication in other verses that this is what is meant, rather the impression given is that revelation seems to talk of the Father and the Son indistinctly.

You said:

“So you admit that the Lord God Almighty is referring to the Father in identity and the Lamb is the other identity. Of course they are one temple, just as Christ is in God and God is in Christ.”

I REPLY:

Is there any scriptural support for your statement that Christ is in God and God is in Christ?, I believe not.

You said:

Christians are called, servants who serve the Father and the Son who are referred to as "Him" rather than "them." Yet we also know that the very first statement in the book of Revelation 1:1 is that Christians are servants of Christ.

If we are true servants of Christ, then it is automatic that we are true servants of God, and if we are true servants of God, then we must also be true servants of Christ. For those who honour God must also honour the Son and vice versa.

I reply

But why are they referred to as “him” not “they”?

And you didn’t comment on this:

Interestingly, in Revelation 7:3; 11:18; 19:2,5 the Christians are called servants of the Father. This is very significant, because when we finally get to the end of the book, we see Christians called servants of both the Father and the son USING THE SINGLULAR twice in Rev 22:3 and Rev 22:6. Revelation 22:6.

You said

Now with regards to the name of God being in our foreheads as mentioned in your post. The name of God is Yahweh (YHWH) and Jesus name is Yahshua and we can see that the name of Christ derives from God’s name. Even Christ is named after his God, just as we will.

Ephesians 3:14-15
14 For this reason I kneel before the Father,
15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

So we can see once again that the Father is the Originator the True God. His name is also in his son’s name and will be in our (God’s children) name too. Again I point out the divine order. God > The Son of God > Sons of God. If the name of our God is in our forehead, then the name of Christ is too. Because we are in Christ and Christ is in God, that we may all be one.

I reply

That is a particularly weak argument.

Then according to you ALL names are on our heads since they all derive from Gods name. That is clearly not what is meant by these verses. You also didn’t address some of the other points about the use of the singular or plural I will repost all of them to remind everyone:

Interestingly, in Revelation 7:3; 11:18; 19:2,5 the Christians are called servants of the Father. This is very significant, because when we finally get to the end of the book, we see Christians called servants of both the Father and the son USING THE SINGLULAR twice in Rev 22:3 and Rev 22:6. Revelation 22:6.

Both the Father and the Son’s name is to be marked on
the foreheads of Christians. (Rev 3:12; 14:1) Yet Revelation 22:4 uses the singular "His name" on the forehead, proving it refers to both although it sounds like it refers to a single individual. Another interesting observation is that Rev 14:1 uses the plural names, yet in Rev 22, where the unity is strongly emphasized, the singular name is used.

Be Well.

[global]

Hi T8,

You have made the following representation of Trinitarian belief:

·He existed as God in identity
·He emptied himself of his God identity
·He became a man, another identity or a man with no God identity
·But then God died, but not the God that he emptied himself of obviously
·He was then exalted back to his original identity

However this representation is not correct, it should be:

He existed as God in being with the other two persons of the being God.
He emptied himself of his equality with the person of the Father whilst remaining God in being.
He became a man (human being), whilst retaining his God being, he was therefore fully Man and God at the same time.
The person Jesus died.
He rose again in accordance with the scriptures and is exalted at the right hand of the Father.

[global]

Hi T8,

You haven’t answered my question.

The point of my original Biblical Argument was not to prove that Jesus is God, it was only to disprove the argument that the differences in titles necessarily proved that Jesus cannot be God.

Do you now accept that that argument was incorrect?

Everything else you have written may or may not be true, but I just want to be clear on this specific question, please can you answer, thankyou.

[global]

Hi T8,

These replies will be coming slowly as I am bit busy at the moment, but I will endeavour to answer all points as quickly as possible.

REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF PART II

My original argument:

Jehovah is not only called the Only true God (John 17:3), but the "Only Saviour" (Isa 43:11; 45:21; Hos 13:4; Jude 25) , "Only King" (Zech 14:9). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then Jesus is also excluded from being a Saviour or King.
Conversely, Jesus is called the "Only Teacher, (Matt 23:8,10, Mt 10:24 and Jn 13:13), "Only Master" (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1), and "Only Lord" (Jude 4, Eph 4:4, 1 Cor 8:4,6, Mt 6:24). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then the Father is also excluded from being our Teacher, Master or Lord.

Your reply:

Well the Bible records that there are many saviours and kings.

Saviour:

Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior.

Yet is says in Isaiah 19:20
It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them.

My reply:

You seem to be making my point for me here T8, by showing scriptures which describe the Father as Lord you show that the title “Only Lord” which is Jesus title doesn’t exclude the Father from being Lord. Do you now accept then that the title “Only true God” applied to the Father doesn’t prove that Jesus cannot also be a “true God”? (remember I am not saying it does prove he is the same God as the Father, I am only trying to disprove your argument that it necessarily proves he cannot).

You said:

So we can see from these examples that God is the true saviour, yet the one he sends to do his work is also referred to as saviour which is of course correct. But the one who is sent is representitive of the one who sends and therefore the one who sends is really the one who ordained and actioned the salvation. This is the same with Christ, for even Christ’s will was to have the cup removed, but he did the will of his Father rather than his own. Etc etc etc.

My reply :

Yes that is all very interesting, but I am not talking about the relationship or hierarchy between the Father and the Son here, all I am trying to prove is that the Father having the title “only true God” does not prove that Jesus cannot also be a true God which was your original argument, do you now accept this?

You said:

Yes God is the only King, but he sets up kings underneath him and delegates authority to them.

E.g David was the King of Israel, yet David was not God himself.

So to exclude David as King because God is the only King is obviously a misunderstanding of what it means to be the only King. God is the true King and he delegates and sets up others to rule over his people/kingdom. If we understand it this way, we can see that it is God who is King and he has representitives doing his bidding. So yes he is the true King, but the kings that he sets up are not false kings, rather their power and authority comes from the true King.

My reply:

It was your misunderstanding then, because you tried to exclude Jesus from being a true God because you said the Father had the title “one true God”

Again all I am trying to establish is that the titles which either the Father or Son have do not prove that Jesus cannot be the same God as the Father.

Do you now accept this?

You said:

Lets change this around a bit.
Trintarians argue that since the Father is called "true God" (John 17:3) and the Son is supposedly "God" (John 1:1; Isa 9:6), this means that Jesus is also the true God, but because there is one God it shows that God is made up of both Father and Son and if we add in the Holy Spirit we now have 3 persons one God. Trinitarians look for such meaningless anomalies and build an entire theological
system upon it. Unfortunately, such logic is absolutely false as can be shown:

My reply:

What are you talking about? What anomaly have I built a theological system on? It is you trying to build a system on minor differences in titles.

I especially object to your statement: “Trintarians argue that since the Father is called "true God" (John 17:3) and the Son is supposedly "God" (John 1:1; Isa 9:6), this means that Jesus is also the true God”

That is not what I was arguing, once again I am just trying to disprove your assertion that the Father being called “true God” prevents Jesus from also being “true God”

Do you now accept that this is not the case?

You then begin talking about some different points which are not related to my Biblical Arguments in any way. I will briefly address them, but in future I will not respond to points which are not answers to my Biblical Arguments as I regard them as attempts to distract from the weakness of your answers, you said:

“Note that it says that Jesus is the light that gives light to men. It is obvious that he is not the source of light and gives that light to God so that God becomes light.”

My reply:

If Jesus IS the light as scripture plainly says, how can he not also be the source of the light as you claim? Also what do you mean “he gives that light to God so God becomes light”?

This is totally non scriptural theorising, there are no scriptures which say any such thing.

You said:

John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

So here we can see again that Jesus is the light of the world, not the source of all light that even makes God light. He is the true light with regards to this world and people, not because he is the source of that light. There is a boundary drawn from these scriptures as to what kind of
light he is. A nice play on words will not stop the true seekers from the truth

My reply:

What on Earth are you talking about?

Where does it ever say in scriptures that Jesus receives his light via the Father?
It plainly says he IS the light.

You said:

1 Corinthians 15:27-28
28 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
29 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

How much clearer does one need to be?

My Reply:

I have already spoken at length about the relationship of voluntary submission of the Son to the Father.

You are aware of this which I have posted before:

Philippians 2:5
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:7
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Philippians 2:8
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:9
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

T8, please please lets not repeat the same arguments over and over. If you reply to my points that is sufficient. Thanks.

Be Well.

[global]

Quote

Quote: from t8 on 12:30 pm on Jan. 15, 2004 To Global, No instance of any firstborn has eternally existed. Israel, Jacob, who or whatever. God is eternal and God is not a firstborn. So to say that Jesus is eternal and to say that the word firstborn doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn’t eternal may be correct, but it also goes the other way. It doesn’t prove that he is eternal and as I said before, all other instances of firstborn have not existed for all eternity. Why should the term firstborn be any different when used to describe Jesus? I have noticed that when it comes to the Trinity doctrine and fitting Christ into this 3 headed god, suddenly a lot of the rules change.

Hi T8,

I am glad that you accept that the use of the word firstborn does not prove Jesus is not eternal.

I have never claimed that it does prove he is eternal. As a descriptive title of honour, it no more proves or disproves the eternal existence than any other descriptive word. Therefore to say for example Jesus had black hair, no other being with black hair was ever eternal is a simplistic argument, and doesnt really say anything.

There are no rule changes T8, only logic.

[global]

Quote

Quote: from t8 on 1:22 am on Dec. 25, 2003 Quote Quote: from global on 6:53 am on Dec. 10, 2003 Hi Clemam, is your question addressed to T8? T8 believes that Jesus is Divine, but is not the same Divinity as the Father. He also believes that Jesus did not exist before being begat by God. I have already pointed out to T8 that – 1) belief in more than one divinity is polytheism. T8 denies he is a polytheist, but has refused to explain why. Therefore we have abandoned that topic in this thread. 2)I have made T8 aware of several scriptures which indicate Jesus is eternal and had no starting point to his existence. So far T8 has been unable to explain this. Be Well. Um Global, 1) What part of there is one God in identity and many others who share in the nature of God do you not understand? You have a big problem with understanding the difference between identity and nature as most Trinitarians do. This is where you trip yourself up. 2) Show me 3 verses that prove that Christ has lived as long as the Father and we can examine what those scriptures really mean. I will start with 3 that show that he isn’t as old as his Father. Hebrews 1:5-6 (English-NIV) <font color=red>5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" 6 And again, when God brings his <b>firstborn</b> into the world, he says, "Let all God’s angels worship him."</font> Proverbs 8:22-30 (English-NIV) <font color=red>22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old; 23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. 24 When there were no oceans, <b>I was given birth</b>, when there were no springs abounding with water; 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, 26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. 30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, </font> Colossians 1:12-16 (English-NIV) <font color=red>12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 <b>He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. </b> 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. </font> You know if it wasn’t such a serious subject it would actually be funny, because the word ‘Son’ by it’s very definition means that there must be a ‘Father’ or originator. If the Father and Son were equal and existed together for all eternity, then you would surely have 2 Fathers or at least 2 Gods. The Father-Son idea would be the wrong model to use in describing the relationship between God and the Word/Logos if they were equal and existed for eternity together. We must acknowledge that there is one God not 2 or 3, yet the Trinity doctrine is an insult to the simplistic meaning and idea behind the Father and Son concept. Instead many have been brainwashed into not asking or questioning the obvious. It is usually young children or young Christians who question the Trinity Doctrine while trying to reconcile their understanding of the Father and Son concept. I have even heard many times from their mouths the following: How can God take a human body and be the Son of God and then the Son of God prays to God and yet be that God as well. Or how can the Son pray to God and be God as well… The young are usually innocent and can think clearer because they are not yet immersed in the distortion of false doctrine. To them (and to all who are not brainwashed into that doctrine or under the Babylonian Spirit);  they can see how clearly silly it really is. They can see that the Emperor has no clothes on. A similar situation is found with the Theory of Evolution. Many so-called enlightened people believe that their ancestors were apes. When many first hear of the theory though, their first thought is that the doctrine is very weird and almost silly, but after a while and through constant teaching whilst looking at the acceptance of that doctrine by others, many just accept it. Then later when they are challenged on the doctrine, it is usual that they defend it with all their pride. Of course not all of us are under that particular Spirit, but many are. I think that the Trinity Doctrine is a deception and curse for those who believe in God, but do not seek after the truth with all their hearts. In the same way, the Theory of Evolution is a deception for those who do not believe in God. Isaiah 66:4 <font color=red>I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. </font> 2 Thessalonians 2:11 <font color=red>And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: </font>

Hi T8, Happy New Year. I’ve been away for a while so I’m just catching up on the last few pages of discussion.

It’s nice to see you getting around to answering some of my previous points, but perhaps I should recommend you to refresh your memory about some of our previous discussions before you continue.

Especially regarding the quote you give above attempting to prove that Jesus is not eternal where you bring up the old "firstborn" chestnut.

I have dealt with this previously and have shown that the word firstborn in the Bible does not necessarily mean the first person born but is also a term of honour indicating a special rank held by a particular person.

Hence, Israel, for example is also called God’s firstborn.

The application of that title to Jesus therefore absolutely fails to prove that Jesus is not eternal.

Regarding your challenge to provide 3 scriptures showing he is eternal, I have also done that in one of my previous posts, and this is one of the topics that I am still waiting a reply from you on.

I will therefore give you a chance to review the previous posts before I start answering again so that we can avoid repeating material.

Be well.

[global]

Hi Clemam,

is your question addressed to T8?

T8 believes that Jesus is Divine, but is not the same Divinity as the Father.

He also believes that Jesus did not exist before being begat by God.

I have already pointed out to T8 that –

1) belief in more than one divinity is polytheism. T8 denies he is a polytheist, but has refused to explain why. Therefore we have abandoned that topic in this thread.

2)I have made T8 aware of several scriptures which indicate Jesus is eternal and had no starting point to his existence. So far T8 has been unable to explain this.

Be Well.

[global]

Hi Sandi, I think you are reading the wrong posts, I dont recognise those comments as being mine.

Look for my posts headed Biblical arguments.

By the way, I havent dealt much with the Holy Spirit yet, but this of course raises a whole new set of problems for T8 as he hasnt said at all how he reconciles the divinity of the Holy Spirit in his scheme of things, but I will refrain from posting about that until he responds to the previous points.

[global]

To T8 and Sandi,

T8: I said that I would answer your questions if you explained why you thought your beliefs differ from polytheism, and you have refused to do so.

Also if I answer them it will encourage you to reply and further distract you from answering my Biblical arguments.

I will start a new thread enitled "How many divinities are there?". If you wish to participate in the new thread, I may answer your questions there if I feel you are going to fairly reciprocate with answers of your own.

To Sandi:

Hi, the information you are looking for is contained in all my answers to T8 contained in this thread, starting I believe around page 26.

Regarding the definition of polytheism I do not believe it was ridiculous for me to ask for it since T8 seems to have a different definition of the word than the normal meaning. He does indeed believe in many Gods since he has stated his belief in many true divinities.

The uncapitalised word gods in the Bible is used to denote non-divine beings so it is not true to say that T8 believes in many gods, but many Gods (as stated previously how many of these he worships is irrelevant).

Please look out for my new thread on this which I will start shortly.

Be Well.

[global]

Hi T8,

Sorry but I find your response to be another lie.

You said –

“I do not have an opinion nor understand the meanings of these words”

That is obviously a lie, do you expect anyone here to believe that you do not understand the meaning of monotheism or polytheism?

That is ridiculous.

If you don’t have an opinion about it why are you so adamant that you are not a polytheist.?

You say that you are not interested in the meanings of words, how convenient for you to say that now when it is becoming embarrassing for you, but before you were very much interested in the meanings of words.

Page 4 of your document about the trinity is in fact titled “True meaning of the word god”

On that page we find –

“Below are the possible meanings of the word ‘theos’.
1)a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God’s representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judges “

But of course you are not interested in the meanings of words.

On page 5 we find –

“"In the beginning was the Word"  is "arche" and this word  means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons “

and –

“The word in the Hebrew used here is "El" and this word means the following:
1)god, godlike one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power “

and –

“Now the word Godhead or Deity means "divinity" according to the Strong’s Concordance. The word "divinity" has a different meaning to the phrase "The Divine". One refers to a person the other is an adjective and refers to a quality/nature”

and-

“"According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, theotes (the nominative form, from which theotetos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature. Being truly "divinity," or "divine nature,"”

and –

“The word "equal" in this verse is the Greek word "isos" which can mean
·similar in amount Or kind
·agree
·equal
·like “

But no, you are not interested in meanings of words.

And on page 23 of this thread you stated in a reply –

“So I think the answer is in the difference in meanings of the words "yeild/give" and the word "share".”

And you are happy to provide a definition of the word Apostacy –

“Apostasy: apostasia {ap-os-tas-ee’-ah}
to forsake, falling away, a falling away, defection, apostasy
feminine version of the word apostasion.

Apostasion: divorce, repudiation, a bill of divorce .”

and on page 28 you are happy to provide a definition of the word “head” –

“The word HEAD means source/master and this is consistent with the Man being the source of the Woman (Eve from Adam) and with Christ being our source”

and on page 32 you are happy to give a meaning to the word “equal” –

“To be equal to something means that you are not that thing, rather you are like it.”

And on page 33 you accept that examining the meanings of words is a good thing –

“Your advice on discovering what the Logos means seems good to me.”

And on page 34 when you incorrectly tried to assert that God is not a class of being you discussed the meaning of the word class –

“The word class is classification and we use it to group together likeness within created things.”

I could go on but the point is made.

Everyone can see that your reasons for not giving the meanings of these words are false.

Why then should we respect your reason on this?

Your assumption that it is “reasonable” is laughable.

I also find it amusing that although you claim not to have had time to answer any of my Biblical arguments on the Trinity, you have had time to comprehensively update your anti Trinitarian document, even including information which I have proven to be false in my previous posts.

And although you accepted before that the information contained in that document about the Council of Nicea was inaccurate and said you would update it none of it has been updated.

I am doubting whether you are really interested in a genuine search for the truth, it seems to me that you are only interested in promoting your own agenda.

Anyway, since you refuse to continue discussing your polytheism, I will start another thread on that topic to leave you free to answering my many unanswered Biblical Arguments on the Trinity in this thread, but I do not have much hope that you will actually do so.

Be Well.

(Edited by global at 1:36 pm on Nov. 20, 2003)

[global]

Hi T8,

I am not talking about labels or doctrines, I am talking about words and the simple meanings of words.

If we cannot agree on the meanings of words then all discussion is useless as we will never be sure what the other person is saying.

You constantly say you only want to use scripture, but scripture is also made up of words, so unless we agree on a common definition of those words then even scripture becomes useless, since I could make it mean anything I wanted it to mean simply by having a different definition of certain words than you do.

Imagine if I then took your position and even refused to tell you what I think certain words mean, not only could you not be sure you understood what I meant you would be incapable of even discussing it with me, the argument would be reduced to pure farce.

So your claim –

“You know what I believe, because I have spelled it out to you,”

Is another lie because you have constantly refused to explain exactly what you do believe.

That is why I do not think it is unreasonable to ask you for a simple definition of the words monotheism and polytheism.

There is no reason for you not to give it, and if you continue to refuse I think everyone reading this will be entitled to draw the conclusion that you are withdrawing from the discussion because you know that the argument is taking a direction where you will be proved to have unsustainable views.

And lets be clear here, I am not the one giving up, it is you.

[global]

T8,

at the moment I am neither trying to prove nor disprove anything, I am trying to understand your beliefs.

If we do not understand your beliefs we can neither argue for them or against them.

Since this is a discussion board I think we are all entitled to ask for explanations and clarifications of what you have said, but you continually refuse to answer questions when they become embarrassing for you and I think everyone will draw their own conclusions from that.

I note your continued failure to answer the questions I posed, I do not think there is any reason why you cannot answer these questions, so I will try one more time:

1) WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF MONOTHEISM?

2) WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF POLYTHEISM?

3) DO YOU THINK YOUR DEFINITIONS AGREE WITH THE ORDINARY DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF THOSE WORDS?

[global]

Quote

Quote: from SHN on 4:45 pm on Nov. 12, 2003 Global, Would you please answer my question, how it is that if Jesus is God, how he is constantly praying to the Father.  The most questionable moment, being from His last visit to Gethsemene, to the cross where He cries, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me."  I am so anxious for an explanation to this question. Thank you for your time In Christ, Sandi

You have answered your own question, he was praying to his Father, Jesus and the Father are different persons but the same God, I suggest you read my previous posts on the incarnation etc for a more comprehensive explanation.

[global]

Quote

Quote: from SHN on 4:51 pm on Nov. 12, 2003 In response to T8’s discussion with you Global, Why is it so hard to understand that there is more than one god (lower case g)  If there weren’t, what is the point of the first two commandments??  Does T8 worship any of these?  I have never seen T8 give the glory to any of these "gods" , but only to the Living God of the Bible.  Even we and satan and Jesus is referred to as "gods".  But only because of the supreme maker of us.  And so all of our, and I see all of T8’s, glorification should go to HIM.  You must admit that scripture is FULL of reference to other gods.  What is so hard to see about this? In Christ, Sandi

The Bible makes clear that when the word god is applied to other beings such as Satan etc, that they are not actually divine. i.e Satan is the god of this world because people worship the values he represents, he has a lot of influence in the world etc, but he is not a true divinity.

However T8 has stated that he believes that there are actually many true divinities, i.e he does not interpret those passages metaphorically but literally.

I am asking him to explain how that is different from polytheism.

It is irrelevant that he only worships one of the gods in his system, polytheism is not the worship of many gods, it is the belief in the existence of many gods.

[global]

Hi T8,

Your last post proves that you are deliberately trying to avoid this question.

You have previously stated your belief in many true divinities, but when I ask you to explain how this is not polytheism, you just keep repeating that you only believe in one god.

Or you just say that the scriptures only teach one god.

I am asking you to reconcile that with your previously stated belief, not just to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again.

You said:

“I acknowledge one God”

That is a lie, because you believe in many gods, in fact in the very same post you again repeat the statement –

“there are many gods”

You then add the qualifier –

“but there is one Supreme God.”

Yes, you YET AGAIN state your belief in one big god and many small gods, as you have been doing ad nauseum, but why don’t you actually answer the question –

“HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM POLYTHEISM?”

As you are obviously incapable of answering this question lets try a different approach, why don’t you answer the following questions –

“WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF MONOTHEISM?”

“WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF POLYTHEISM?”

“DO YOU THINK YOUR DEFINITIONS AGREE WITH THE ORDINARY DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF THOSE WORDS?”

[global]

You are again just restating your belief in one big god who you call the Most High God, and lots of smaller gods who you nonetheless have asserted are true divinities.

Please can you explain how this differs from polytheism?

[global]

Quote

Quote: from t8 on 6:26 am on Nov. 8, 2003 Hi Global, Your quotes are in gray. <font color=gray><i>I have made it clear several times in my previous posts that I believe that the phrase many gods does not refer to actual divinities but either to false divinities, or other types of authorities and powers who are nonetheless not actually divine. That is why he specifically uses the phrase so called gods. This is why translators use lower case gods, not Gods, or put the word in inverted commas gods to show that he is not actually talking about divinities</i></font> I agree with your description of "so called gods." There are indeed many "gods" and many "lords". We see lords in the Royal Family of England, we have landlords, there are Warlords. There are in fact many lords. But Jesus is the One Lord who has true authority over us and eventually all things. Once this is accomplished he will give pass that authority to God. All so called lords are actually under Christ who is seated above all creation. So it is with God. There are many gods/authorities, some false and others who are not. But there is one God who will eventually be over all and through all. All so called gods are under the authority and power of the one true God YHWH, whether they recognize him or not. So what do I mean by gods. Well they are so called because they are either false, they are in authority of some kind or they are beings that are like God (the Father). Beings made in his image. Look @ Psalm 82:6 <font color=red>"I said, ‘You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.’ </font> Now if I say that we are gods because we are sons of the Most High, and you say that I am a polytheist because of that, then why is this thinking clearly demonstrated as truth in scripture. Even Jesus Christ quoted this scripture in John 10:34 <font color=red>Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’.</font> So does Jesus teach Polytheism. Well maybe to your judgement yes, that is if you judge him with the measure you have judged me. But we both know that Jesus calls us gods because we are God’s offspring or God’s sons. It doesn’t mean that we are God himself and it certainly doesn’t promote Polytheism if we are gods. Now read Galatians 4:8 <font color=red>Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.</font> If the word ‘gods;’ is always false, then the above verse suggests that they were slaves to those who are not false gods and if it means to those in authority, then it must be saying that they were slaves to those who are not in authority. Anyway that is beside the point, it seems to me that there is the strong possibility that we can recognise a god by his nature and if humans do participate in that nature, then it could be one reason why sons of the Most High are referred to as gods. We who submit to God actually submit to his nature and we are destined to participate in the divine nature. Surely that participation makes us divine in the same way that we can be holy just as He is. Yes we certainly can be holy, not of our own works but by the work of God. Is God light, yet we are the light of the world. Not of our own strength but because it is God’s good pleasure to work through us and shine his light through us. We are the vessels as SHN put it and God shines his qualities through us. We only need to be clean/transparent in order to become his image. If God gives and we recieve, do we not participate and become like him. If God is the Divine and he shares his nature with us, then how can we not be divine? God transforms us just by dwelling in us. Likewise if God is light and he shines his glorious light through us, then how can we not be light? <font color=gray><i>I have also made it clear that when the Bible says we have the divine nature that I believe it is an adjectival description of our nature, it doesn’t actually mean that we are divine.</i></font> Where is your proof for this interpretation. Our nature comes from Adam and isn’t that nature condemned? 2 Peter 2:18 <font color=red>For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.</font> I personally have never read a verse that describes human nature as divine. As far as I know, human nature is not redeemed, it is condemned. Jesus didn’t die to resurrect human nature, rather he died to save us (our souls) and to give us a new nature that cannot sin. Perhaps you can enlighten me here? How can human nature be divine in quality? This is what you appear to be saying. <font color=gray><i>I do not have a problem with Pauls words,  I do not even have a problem with you interpreting them literally to mean the existence of many actual Gods. I just have a problem with your claim that your belief in many Gods is not polytheism.</i></font> If I believe the words of Christ and Paul and quote them and you call me a Polytheist, then who really has the problem here? <font color=gray><i>You are obviously unable to give me an answer because it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain that you are not a polytheist when you believe IN MORE THAN ONE GOD.</i></font> If Jesus calls us gods because we are sons of the Most High, then perhaps you could explain to me what Jesus is really saying? Romans 1:20 <font color=red>For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities his eternal power and <b>divine nature</b> have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.</font> Romans 9:4 <font color=red>the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the <b>divine glory</b>, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.</font> 2 Corinthians 10:4 <font color=red>The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have <b>divine power</b> to demolish strongholds.</font> 2 Peter 1:3 <font color=red>His <b>divine power</b> has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.</font> 2 Peter 1:4 <font color=red>Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the <b>divine nature</b> and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.</font> None of the above scriptures are referring to the human nature. They all come from either God’s glory, power or his nature and these things have been given to the Church. His Kingdom is inside us. We are indeed participating in his glory, nature and his power.

That is all very interesting but you still havent explained how your belief in many true divinities isnt polytheism, I am still waiting for your answer on this.

Be Well.

[global]

Hi T8,

You are not fooling anyone by your attempt to say that I am stuck on Pauls words.

I have made it clear several times in my previous posts that I believe that the phrase “many gods” does not refer to actual divinities but either to false divinities, or other types of authorities and powers who are nonetheless not actually divine.

That is why he specifically uses the phrase “so called gods”.

This is why translators use lower case gods, not Gods, or put the word in inverted commas “gods” to show that he is not actually talking about divinities

I have also made it clear that when the Bible says we have the divine nature that I believe it is an adjectival description of our nature, it doesn’t actually mean that we are divine.

I have made this point several times now, and I am getting tired of repeating it.

You however have clearly stated that you believe those words to signify actual divinities.

I do not have a problem with Pauls words, I do not even have a problem with you interpreting them literally to mean the existence of many actual Gods.

I just have a problem with your claim that your belief in many Gods is not polytheism.

It clearly is, and it is clearly you who is in a repetitive loop trying to make sense of your logically impossible statements.

You are obviously unable to give me an answer because it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain that you are not a polytheist when you believe IN MORE THAN ONE GOD.

You are the one who should just admit it instead of carrying on this ridiculous spectacle.

[global]

That does not explain it.

That is a re-statement of your beliefs, it describes that you believe in one big divinity (the divine identity), and lots of smaller divinities, but it does not explain how you are not a polytheist.

(Edited by global at 5:57 am on Nov. 7, 2003)

(Edited by global at 5:59 am on Nov. 7, 2003)

[global]

Hi T8,

I said I would answer your questions when I fully understand what your position is.

We havent yet arrived at that point because we havent yet seen how you reconcile your clearly stated belief in several divinities with your denial that you are a polytheist.

I know that you dont worship all of the divinities, but as I have said previously it is not necessary in a polytheistic system that you worship all or even any of the divinities, it is only necessary that you believe in their existence, which you have said you do.

Are you going to explain this or not?

[Author]

Posts