Zone1 For the Love of God...

[onefour1]

We're gonna disagree on that. I believe Scripture is clear, one God. Your belief is polytheism.

I don't expect you to believe as I do but it is fun to share beliefs. Believing that in existence there are more than one God can be viewed as a polytheism, but I do not believe that for me there is any other God than my Father in Heaven and that Jesus Christ is my one and only Savior. They along with the person of the Holy Ghost constitute the one God that I worship and none else.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't expect you to believe as I do but it is fun to share beliefs. Believing that in existence there are more than one God can be viewed as a polytheism, but I do not believe that for me there is any other God than my Father in Heaven and that Jesus Christ is my one and only Savior. They along with the person of the Holy Ghost constitute the one God that I worship and none else.

The only belief I have is Scripture. Nothing else. Good luck.

 

[ding]

I consider my behaviour in these religion discussions to be unflawed and respectable.

I don't. I consider your behaviors to be unjustifiably condescending and self serving.

And as is not Ding's as he has refused to not be delivered from evil thoughts and has succumbed to temptation due to frustration and anger.

This is a perfect example of that.

 

[onefour1]

Most see this as Jesus, in his human nature, would be subordinate. Our different view of the Trinity (God as Creator, as Word, as Inspirational Guide and Protector of Creation) does not allow for subordination. Each is an essential part of One being.

How can God be three separate and distinct persons and yet be the same being? What scriptural evidence says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the same being?

Creation (mind of God) was done through the Word, which was spread and inspired through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the word of God. Through him the Father created all things that were created. Through Jesus' command the elements obeyed.

If you had no words, who would you be? If your word could not be carried to others, what good would it be? We are tiny renditions of our Father, the Almighty. If we try to be Him, we will miss out on being who we are. God has a purpose. We have a purpose. And that purpose is not to be God, not to be who we are not and were never meant to be.

We are not trying to be him but we are trying to be like him. We have been commanded to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. It is the desire of God that we become one with him even as the Father and Jesus are one.

Matthew 5:48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

John 17:20-23
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

[onefour1]

I understand that's what you believe. That's not what I believe. But my point was that even if there is a hierarchy - which I don't believe there is - it still wouldn't be an analogy for your belief that there are many different, distinct and separate gods who started out as creatures.

I think we all understand that we all believe in different beliefs. Jesus called us gods in Psalms 82:6 and reiterated it in John 10:31-36. Was Jesus a polytheist? Why would he call those unto whom the word came gods? If they are gods, then there are many gods. If they are not gods, is Jesus a liar? True, they are not the god we should worship and follow for our salvation but he did call them gods and there must be more gods than just one if he himself called us such. Why is it so incredible that we would be called gods after this life if we have already been called gods while in this life?

 

[Meriweather]

Jesus called us gods in Psalms 82:6 and reiterated it in John 10:31-36.

elohiym is the Hebrew and it means 'gods'. This did not mean a plurality of Gods. This can be illustrated in Exodus, where the same word has been translated as 'Judges'.

Men who commissioned to some special task by God that they were elohiym.

The psalm was a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and defend the poor and the innocent, living men of the time to act like gods (just and fair judges) towards men. Keep in mind Biblical Hebrew only has about seven thousand words. Many words, did multiple duties depending on how that word was being used.

Jesus said he was one with the Father, the Son of God. He noted earlier scriptures where Judges (and others) commissioned by God to a special task (here, while on earth) and were called gods or sons of God.

Therefore, if Jesus' words were not enough to sway his critics, they should look at his deeds, his healings, his miracles. Looking at his acts, could they say these deeds were not of God? They could not, and so Jesus prevailed in his insistence that he had indeed been dispatched by God to do the will of the Father who sent him.

God is spirit. When the lowercase 'elohiyim' is used, it refers to men who are doing something for God here on earth. They are the servants of God, they are not God or even forerunners of being a 'different God' in their afterlife.

 

[BreezeWood]

We're gonna disagree on that. I believe Scripture is clear, one God. Your belief is polytheism.

there is not a conflict for the polytheistic universe and the desert religions -

were there a claim for a solitary god as described by the desert religions that would not preclude the obvious polytheistic universe as all in the heavens are equal regardless their stature. whether even as gods or other designations.

 

[BS Filter]

there is not a conflict for the polytheistic universe and the desert religions -

were there a claim for a solitary god as described by the desert religions that would not preclude the obvious polytheistic universe as all in the heavens are equal regardless their stature. whether even as gods or other designations.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't believe it.

 

[onefour1]

No, Jesus was not created. Firstborn doesn't mean created. Jehovah's Witnesses make the same mistake.

In your opinion you think it is a mistake to say Jesus wasn't born of the Father in the spirit. I believe Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of the Father. God the Father is the Father of spirits.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Jesus is the firstborn and he is the Son of God. Why wouldn't God the Father be the father of Jesus' spirit and Jesus be the offspring of the Father?

No, Jesus was not created. Firstborn doesn't mean created. Jehovah's Witnesses make the same mistake.

The word, "firstborn" does not equate to the word, "created" but it does mean that one is the first born of someone.

 

[onefour1]

The only belief I have is Scripture. Nothing else. Good luck.

Can you show in scripture that Jesus' spirit was not the offspring of God the Father?

 

[onefour1]

elohiym is the Hebrew and it means 'gods'. This did not mean a plurality of Gods. This can be illustrated in Exodus, where the same word has been translated as 'Judges'.

Men who commissioned to some special task by God that they were elohiym.

The psalm was a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and defend the poor and the innocent, living men of the time to act like gods (just and fair judges) towards men. Keep in mind Biblical Hebrew only has about seven thousand words. Many words, did multiple duties depending on how that word was being used.

Jesus said he was one with the Father, the Son of God. He noted earlier scriptures where Judges (and others) commissioned by God to a special task (here, while on earth) and were called gods or sons of God.

Therefore, if Jesus' words were not enough to sway his critics, they should look at his deeds, his healings, his miracles. Looking at his acts, could they say these deeds were not of God? They could not, and so Jesus prevailed in his insistence that he had indeed been dispatched by God to do the will of the Father who sent him.

God is spirit. When the lowercase 'elohiyim' is used, it refers to men who are doing something for God here on earth. They are the servants of God, they are not God or even forerunners of being a 'different God' in their afterlife.

Can you give me the verse where 'elohim' is translated as 'judges'? I don't believe that it was translated correctly and I think it is a mistranslation. If you are to substitute the word, "judges" into Jesus' conversation in John 10, it wouldn't make sense.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
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?

Would be changed to:

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
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 judges?
35 If he called them judges, 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?

Makes no sense at all. When Jesus said, "Ye are gods", he meant gods and not judges. That is how he quotes it and uses it in John 10:34-35. He basically was telling the Jews that it is stupid that ye charge me with blasphemy for claiming I am the Son of God when your law shows that I said, "Ye are gods". If it only meant judges, then Jesus argument would make no sense and the Jews could have argued back to him that it meant, "judges".

 

[Meriweather]

Can you give me the verse where 'elohim' is translated as 'judges'?

Off the top of my head, Exodus 21:6, comes to mind; then again somewhere in Chapter 22. The judges were chosen by God. Jesus was pointing out that those before him who were chosen by God to a particular task were also referred to as sons of God, so his critics should not be thinking of stoning him, when their own scriptures used the term for those who were appointed by God to a special task.

If their own scripture used the term, surely it was not heresy for Jesus to use the term since his very acts showed that he, too, had been appointed by God to heal, to work miracles, etc.

 

[Meriweather]

Makes no sense at all. When Jesus said, "Ye are gods", he meant gods and not judges.

Jesus used the term the way people of his own time understood the term. No one understood the term to mean 'Gods of their own right in their next life.' They understood it to reference men in this life chosen by God to perform certain tasks in this life.

 

[BS Filter]

In your opinion you think it is a mistake to say Jesus wasn't born of the Father in the spirit. I believe Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of the Father. God the Father is the Father of spirits.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Jesus is the firstborn and he is the Son of God. Why wouldn't God the Father be the father of Jesus' spirit and Jesus be the offspring of the Father?

The word, "firstborn" does not equate to the word, "created" but it does mean that one is the first born of someone.

The first part is confusing. As to Firstborn, it means preeminence. It doesn't have anything to do with order of birth in speaking of Jesus.

 

[BS Filter]

Can you show in scripture that Jesus' spirit was not the offspring of God the Father.

I'm not sure what you mean by "offspring". Do you believe the Father God had sex with Mary?

 

[onefour1]

Off the top of my head, Exodus 21:6, comes to mind; then again somewhere in Chapter 22. The judges were chosen by God. Jesus was pointing out that those before him who were chosen by God to a particular task were also referred to as sons of God, so his critics should not be thinking of stoning him, when their own scriptures used the term for those who were appointed by God to a special task.

If their own scripture used the term, surely it was not heresy for Jesus to use the term since his very acts showed that he, too, had been appointed by God to heal, to work miracles, etc.

Thanks for the references. It is translated by the translators of the KJV as "judges" in Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9. However, is this translation due to the translators opinion and not the Hebrew that was written? Maybe they referred to a group who made judgments as gods. In all other references in the bible it is translated as "gods" or "god". Obviously it meant gods in Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34-35, Otherwise it makes no sense to substitute the word judges. Definitely he is referring to those who are men on earth and not equals to our Father in heaven. That was not my point. My point is that the word, "elohim" is used which means "gods" and this is how Jesus uses it in John 10. So why would Jesus call those unto whom the word of God came, "gods", if there are no other Gods beside him? I don't believe there was any capitalization in the Hebrew, but I do believe there is a differentiation between the God whom we look for for truth, salvation and guidance in our journey in life and other gods. There is only one God whom we should worship and follow. But there are other gods in existence. This what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 8 as follows:

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
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.

I don't believe he is referring to idols as some have believed because in verse 4 he declares idols as nothing. I believe he is referring to gods that Jesus declared to be to whom the word of God came and also to those who have gone on to their own kingdom in the hereafter. But for all who are the children of God the Father and under the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is not other God to whom we should look to for our salvation and exaltation.

 

[onefour1]

Jesus used the term the way people of his own time understood the term. No one understood the term to mean 'Gods of their own right in their next life.' They understood it to reference men in this life chosen by God to perform certain tasks in this life.

I agree that he was referencing men on this earth whom he called gods. Again my point is if he called them gods, were they? Certainly they were not equal to our Father in Heaven or our Lord Jesus Christ, but Jesus considered them to be gods. So even though there are those that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth ( as there be gods many and lords many) To us there is but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ to who we worship and look to for our eternal salvation and our future immortality.

 

[onefour1]

The first part is confusing. As to Firstborn, it means preeminence. It doesn't have anything to do with order of birth in speaking of Jesus.

I believe the firstborn is a designation of those who hold preeminence. However, I do not think that that is the only meaning of the word and that it did primarily and in almost all cases apply to the firstborn son of each family. I think it is the same in heaven and that we are all the offspring of God, including Jesus, and he was the firstborn of all the spirits of God the Father. Thus he is a son of God as all of us are. We are his offspring and he is the Father of our spirits.

 

[Meriweather]

So why would Jesus call those unto whom the word of God came, "gods", if there are no other Gods beside him?

Why would we call a sad person "blue" when clearly he has the same skin tone as anyone else? There are few words in Hebrew, and the definition of the word was determined by context. Rulers, leaders, those chosen by God for a specific task, etc. all fell under the word elohiym.

The LDS faith simply added another definition, that which in the afterlife, men become Gods. Jews held no such belief in Biblical times, and no such belief now. That belief was presented in the nineteenth century by the LDS denomination, and it remains the only denomination who believes that is what scripture meant all along. Perhaps the LDS faithful believe their minds were open to a greater understanding, and that's fine. But it is not the same understanding in Biblical times or of any other religion until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints emerged.

 

[Meriweather]

Again my point is if he called them gods, were they?

No. The definition behind Jesus' use of the word meant men appointed by God to carry out a specific task here on earth.