Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 278

Thread: Asking JWs to describe the "a god" they insist is there

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,035
    Thanks
    203
    Thanked 169 Times in 150 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    And you're still pitting Scripture against Scripture.
    Not I.

    John 17:3 "you [the Father] the Only True God"

    I put no scripture up against it.

    Trinitarians do.

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Not really sure why you think that's a "switcharoo".
    Really? Is it your memo or the secretary's who typed it?

    "switcharoo"!

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Jesus and the Father are one.
    So is any unanimous decision. Does not make the voters consubstantial and co-eternal.

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    But what?

    Great answer. Now, as I said before, I accept this verse. And I also accept this one:

    Do you believe this?

    Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

    How about this?

    Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
    Even this one:

    Judges 3:9 And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Calebís younger brother.

    I guess Othniel is also God?

    Judges 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab.

    Ehud?
    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Wonderful! We agree. But you need to prove
    I did.

    3 He [the Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Actually, Christ delivers the goods:

    1 Cor 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
    24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
    25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
    26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
    27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
    He can only give back what was "delivered to him."

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    There's no difference in "by" and " by means of". You just think its a great retort. But you haven't thought it through.
    Again,

    Is it your memo or the secretary's who typed it?

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    First of all, Christ isn't a method. That is what "means" means.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    And if you claim that in this case, "means of" means "through", well, that word is already there. by, through and for.
    That "by" is not one of source, but of means, as denoted by the footnote.

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    And if you claim this is intentional repetition for emphasis, well, then why isn't "for" have the same sense as the previous two?
    Disposition of the work is not relevant to means of working.

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    And finally, if it is by means of Christ, that still makes Christ God, because only God can create from nothing:
    Jesus did not create from nothing. He was used by the Father to perform the creation. Think of an energy conduit, if it makes you feel better.

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Yes, the Actor, Himself. If God the Father created the world by means of the Son, then it is the Son who created the world, in your interpretation.
    Only if your secretary is responsible for the contents of your memo, making you just a flunky with no power.

    But, the scriptures say "through" which makes it clear the contents, thus creation of the memo, was not by your secretary. The secretary just made it manifest. You could have typed the memo without the secretary. But the secretary cannot generate the memo without you.

    The secretary is nothing without you.

    You are the boss, even without the secretary.

    The secretary never writes anything you do not say.

    You and the secretary are one.

    All memos were made through the secretary, Not a single memo that was made was made without the secretary.

    But, the secretary is not you, or your equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Therefore, you have proven two Persons of the Holy Trinity.
    Not really.

    No son pre-exists his Father. Or can even appear at the same time.

    Sons have origins. They must be begotten.

    God does not.

    Thanks for playing: Dismantling the Trinity.
    "You [the Father], the Only True God" -- Jesus Christ (1st Century CE)

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,035
    Thanks
    203
    Thanked 169 Times in 150 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Only_3 View Post
    Quite obvious that the Son is co-equal with the Father as we speak. What were you saying about "later on"?
    "co-equal"?

    Is there a "separate equal"?

    1 Cor 15:27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him.

    Nope. Not equals at all.
    "You [the Father], the Only True God" -- Jesus Christ (1st Century CE)

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    34,615
    Thanks
    4,488
    Thanked 5,770 Times in 4,824 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson View Post
    I was quoting the Koine' word for word
    Yes I know. It is not flowing word for word as is the case with translations.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    34,615
    Thanks
    4,488
    Thanked 5,770 Times in 4,824 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    I see what the GB says is truth. That is why I believe them. Not because I was told to believe them.
    I am very sure they told you to believe them. All men wants others to believe them and if they gain power or money from men doing so, so much the better. That you do not remember being told to believe everything the GB says is telling. That is what happens in cults and the Russelites are no different.
    Everyone else? If everyone else is on the road to destruction, then they would perhaps think those on the narrow road are restricted, until the end, when they may realize that joining everyone else means death.
    I can assure you, not enjoying the birth and presence of others or dining and giving to one another does not put us on the road to destruction.
    Regarding the OP point. I take it you do not wish to discuss it any longer, as you ignore some pretty important questions.
    It was getting pretty tiresome as the JW answers were either NOT a disscussion but yanking out Bible verses or jumping on what "and" means. Are there some points I missed that are not among these kind? I would be glad to address them but asking questions and getting a quote from someone else is not a discussion. I was asking JWs to think. The meaning of "my" and "and" or quotes is not thinking.
    I do not give you information from publications, but simple reasoning, and simple questions you choose to not answer. You can pretend it is us who are shutting this conversation down, but from where I sit you ignore the counterpoints to believe as you wish. At least that is how it seems.
    My questions from post #23 are still unanswered.
    OK, I will go back and look but as I said, answers are a discussion. Thanks for point out where to go first.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    34,615
    Thanks
    4,488
    Thanked 5,770 Times in 4,824 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    The Bible doesn't claim all men are gods, but certain ones in authority are referred to in this way. The judges had authority over the people, and as such were referred to as gods.
    Well, The ?? said that men were commonly refered to as Gods. There is only one passage where this might be the case. So now I ask you, please point out 5 references where men are called by other men "gods." Since the Psalm one does not say anything about being judges, that one is excluded. Related question, which oneS in authority are refered to as gods. Needs to be to others, not just one individual for a particular time or task. If certain ones in authority are refered to as gods, this ought to be easy and if it is common, coming up with 5 judges who are openely called gods ought to be easy. These need to cases where men are called gods as that is accept the the One True God, by the way.
    Jesus show if such imperfect men who attempted to serve God faithfully, yet still were imperfect and died can be called gods, and the word of God cannot be nullified, certainly God's Son, who was perfect and sinless, and faithfully did Gods will can be a god.
    I would like the refered where Jesus talkes about imperfect men who attempt to serve God faithfully were called gods by him. Again, the reference to Psalms is out because those were not described as attempting to serve God faithfully. Where does Jesus describe or address men as "gods?"

    So your argument is based on what is not there, as opposed to what is definitely there?
    NO, it is limited to what is there. I am not embellishing nor adding to it to make it say something it says no where.

    So these gods you are going to come up with, they are not false gods but not the One True GOD right? So there is a third category? If judges, in GB theology, can be called gods, is the office that makes men gods? Jesus said he is not the judge so he is not a god, right?
    Dottie, very simply, do you believe the Bible refers to Israel's judges and kings as gods? Ps 82:6 Elohim
    One chapter in the whole of the Bible and where is the word "judges" used to describe who this is written to? I asked for 5 verses where judges are refered to by men as gods. You can throw in by God a few times I guess...where God addresses them as "gods." We have elminated Psalm 82 and you insist this is common. Where are the others? (There aren't any and we both know it. The problem one has in talking with JWs as they do not tell the truth. I have read in old JW publications that is it OK to lie to get people into the organization. This of one them. You and the other wrote that this is a name referred to judges. I know it is not there. You know it too. Or maybe you believed the GB and never looked. But if it is a common reference for judges, it will be there and in spakes. One can say the term "my lord" is a common expression for people in authority and I can find lots and lots of examples. References to man as "god" are Moses to Pharaoh alone, no one else including the Israelies and Ps 82 which does not mention judges. That is it. But your team says it like it is common. It is not. What is common is "God is one" and his glory will he not share with another. What is very common are referense to God as the Holy Spirit being present somewhere and yet not the Ancient of Days.

    Do you understand that the angels are referred to by the Hebrew word "Elohim" which means gods? Ps 8:5 Elohim
    We were talking men. Please give me the references where men are refered to by others as "god." Where does GOD call angels "god?" "Malach" is the word for angel. Let's get back to Jesus, because this is where the JWs fight. What angels are has no bearing on the discussion. I assume you are not going to deny "Hear o Israel the Lord our God is One" but start telling me that this is not what was said but instead "many."

    The JW position is: Jesus was a god. Now Jesus did not say this. The disciples did not say this. No one said it. If this is a common way of looking at it, how come no one said so in the whole of the NT? (JWs insert the "a" in front of the Word was God because the idea that Jesus was God is repugnant to them, not because anyone reading or writing the works of John thought John was saying that Jesus was a god too. Begs the obvious as to why this bombshell against Jewish thought was not mentioned anywhere else.)

    The other statment is judges are called gods. Of course this is no where in the Bible either. Samuel was a judge in Israel. Where is he referred to by the people as a god? There were gods beside the ONe True and they were false.

    So there are three categories:
    1. The One TRue GOD
    2. false GODS
    3. GODS who are neither the above.

    All of this dancing so that no JW has to admit that Jesus was Emmanuel, GOD with us. To the followers of Russel, Jesus was a GOD like judges, I guess even though judges are NOT refered to as GOD by the Hebrews despite the claim. He didn't say he was a GOD but the I AM for which the Jews wanted to stone him for making himself equal with GOD. But nevermind according to Russelites. You will not acknowledge Him as GOD until you stand before Him.

    Dottie, do you deny that in God's word the Bible, Jesus verified that the judges were called gods, by God Himself, and that those words cannot be nullified? John 10:34,35 Theos
    Where is the word describing the subjects as "judges?" Where is "you are judges?" (Some of the things they do are what judges do but not exclusively.)
    Last edited by Dottie; 05-19-2017 at 01:50 AM.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    34,615
    Thanks
    4,488
    Thanked 5,770 Times in 4,824 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger 2 View Post
    Dottie (#141):

    Why do you refuse to understand that a singular nominative count noun (without modifiers as in John 1:1c) in NT Greek will be translated with the indefinite article (a/an) in English?? In NT Greek there was no indefinite article. Translators ADD the English a/an to make a proper English translation.

    You pretend to like analysis, but refuse to do the slightest proper research.

    Try looking up how English Bibles render all the uses of the anarthrous anthropos ('man') in John: (John 1:6; 3:1; 3:4; 3:27; 7:23; 9:16; 10:33). Most will add the understood "a" and not even mark it as understood because every NT Greek scholar KNOWS it is to be added.

    Or look at how these statements (which have an anarthrous unmodified count noun used as a predicate noun before its verb as in John 1:1c) are translated in English Bibles:

    H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
    H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
    H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all
    H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all
    H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all
    H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
    H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all
    H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all
    H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all
    H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all
    [H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

    Can you not understand this?
    I have heard from Greek scholars and none of them say this. None. Only JWs make this up. So you can ask me if I do not understand the goobly JW spine and I have to say that Greek scholars who do not get paid from the GB do not say this at all. What is more, if anyone thought Jesus was a god and men are gods and judges are gods, it would have been a major part of the writings of others. All you got is one reference in the whole of the NT that only JWs believe. Only JWs.

    Here is what Greek scholars about the JW corruption:
    Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
    Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
    British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
    "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
    Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
    "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament.
    The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
    the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)

    Unbiased educated Greek scholars do not see Jesus was a god. Sorry but that is only the GB.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,347
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 2,909 Times in 2,301 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Well, The ?? said that men were commonly refered to as Gods. There is only one passage where this might be the case. So now I ask you, please point out 5 references where men are called by other men "gods." Since the Psalm one does not say anything about being judges, that one is excluded.
    The ?? who? Who is that? The one who calls himself The Question? I try to not read his posts.
    I was addressing your OP, not what someone else said.

    Psalm is speaking of men. Whether you acknowledge them as judges or whatever else, they were men who were called gods. Yet you are trying to nullify God's word, when Jesus said you cannot.


    I would like the refered where Jesus talkes about imperfect men who attempt to serve God faithfully were called gods by him. Again, the reference to Psalms is out because those were not described as attempting to serve God faithfully. Where does Jesus describe or address men as "gods?"
    It is "out" because you do not know which men it is talking about? That does not take the word "gods" out of there as you would like. You are using a terribly false argument to nullify that God called these men gods.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie
    Quote Originally Posted by TBax
    Dottie, very simply, do you believe the Bible refers to Israel's judges and kings as gods? Ps 82:6 Elohim
    One chapter in the whole of the Bible and where is the word "judges" used to describe who this is written to? I asked for 5 verses where judges are refered to by men as gods. You can throw in by God a few times I guess...where God addresses them as "gods." We have elminated Psalm 82 and you insist this is common.
    I never insisted it was common. You didn't ask me for 5 verses. That you cannot comprehend who this is talking about in Psalms doesn't change the fact that it was men who were referred to as gods.

    The problem one has in talking with JWs as they do not tell the truth.
    Show me anything I said in this thread that is not the truth.

    I have read in old JW publications that is it OK to lie to get people into the organization.
    You read that from an apostate. That is a lie that you chose to believe.

    Theocratic warfare is about not revealing, perhaps lying about, the location of our brothers to persecuters who wish to harm them. This got twisted by apostates to the above lie that you repeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie
    Quote Originally Posted by TBax
    Do you understand that the angels are referred to by the Hebrew word "Elohim" which means gods? Ps 8:5 Elohim
    We were talking men.
    No, you ask if there were any others called gods. You specifically asked in your OP "Many gods. So is Jesus simply another god? Are there more out there?"
    Here angels are called gods, yet you are going to disqualify it because they are not human? Not a reasonable point.

    Simply put, others in the Bible are called gods. Not to be worshipped, but are to serve the one true God, Jehovah.


    The JW position is: Jesus was a god. Now Jesus did not say this.
    Correct. Jesus didn't say this, yet implied it at John 10:34-36 by his reasoning.
    (John 10:34-36) Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
    That was the point of Jesus using this reference from Psalm.





    The disciples did not say this. No one said it.
    John said it at John 1:1. But you are correct in that they didn't walk around saying that. That wasn't their message. What they believed about God was clearly recorded at 1 Cor 8:6.

    (1 Corinthians 8:6) there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

    No trinity there. No Jesus is God there. But only one God, the Father. And they mention the one who God made our Lord as well. Jesus. Not God, but Lord. We must respect the one Jehovah made our Lord. Since God gave his this position, rejecting Jesus is rejecting the God who gave him such authority.

    Phil 2:9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie
    Quote Originally Posted by TBax
    Dottie, do you deny that in God's word the Bible, Jesus verified that the judges were called gods, by God Himself, and that those words cannot be nullified? John 10:34,35 Theos
    Where is the word describing the subjects as "judges?" Where is "you are judges?" (Some of the things they do are what judges do but not exclusively.)
    We were not discussing the word judges, but the fact that these men are called gods. Please stay on topic.
    Last edited by TBax; 05-19-2017 at 04:54 AM.
    Agape,
    TBax

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    34,615
    Thanks
    4,488
    Thanked 5,770 Times in 4,824 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    The ?? who? Who is that? The one who calls himself The Question? I try to not read his posts.
    Wise choice and OK, we leave his view out.
    Psalm is speaking of men. Whether you acknowledge them as judges or whatever else, they were men who were called gods. Yet you are trying to nullify God's word, when Jesus said you cannot.
    It is not me not acknowleding them as judges. They are not judges because no one in the text calls them judges. Show me where judges are address as gods in the Bible. If this is as common as you claim, it ought not to be difficult.
    It is "out" because you do not know which men it is talking about? That does not take the word "gods" out of there as you would like. You are using a terribly false argument to nullify that God called these men gods.
    Not what i said. No where does the author say he is addressing judges. No where. Move on.
    I never insisted it was common. You didn't ask me for 5 verses. That you cannot comprehend who this is talking about in Psalms doesn't change the fact that it was men who were referred to as gods.
    Please find for me verses where judges are addressed by God or man as gods. Stop insulting my intelligence because I do not read the word "judges" where the word "judges" does not appear except as addressed to God, Himself.
    Show me anything I said in this thread that is not the truth.
    You said the BIble refers to judges as "gods." I asked where. You give me one Psalm where judges are not being addressed in particular. I asked for more. Did you give me any? If not, drop the statement that the Bible refers to judges as gods.
    You read that from an apostate. That is a lie that you chose to believe.
    Wasn't an apostate. Was an early JW GB approved publication.
    Theocratic warfare is about not revealing, perhaps lying about, the location of our brothers to persecuters who wish to harm them. This got twisted by apostates to the above lie that you repeated.
    Huh?

    No, you ask if there were any others called gods. You specifically asked in your OP "Many gods. So is Jesus simply another god? Are there more out there?"
    Among other questions. Did you answer these?
    Here angels are called gods, yet you are going to disqualify it because they are not human? Not a reasonable point.
    Not, they are refered to as Elohim and if men tried to worship them, only the evil ones accept worship as gods. Sorry but they do not think of themselves that way nor accept god treatment. What does it matter in any case? Do you know that "messenger" called Angel by some can be men as well. Does that make men angels?
    Simply put, others in the Bible are called gods. Not to be worshipped, but are to serve the one true God, Jehovah.
    Give me the quotes where some men are called gods by otherS. You keep making statments with no passage. We've covered Ps 82 so that is out. We have covered Moses being so great in authority to one man, Pharoh but no other he will think of him in some way as god. What is not really clear since he sent his army to kill him. Odd treatment to one you think of as a god.
    Correct. Jesus didn't say this, yet implied it at John 10:34-36 by his reasoning.
    Nope. No JW "reasoning" allowed as that means "slant the work to say what the GB wants." Jesus implied he was the I AM for which the Jews correctly understanding him wanted to stone him. He never implied he was a god and coined the phrase "One True" which means he did not think he was a god among many. Never told his disciples they were gods either.
    (John 10:34-36) Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
    That was the point of Jesus using this reference from Psalm.
    Did he call them gods? Did he call his disciples gods? Do you have anything else besides Jesus quoting Ps 82 upon which you base your entire theology on Jesus? Is that it? (I know that is it.) The entire understanding of Jesus not being Emmanuel based on this? Something Jesus never said to anyone in any context except when about to be stoned to death.
    John said it at John 1:1. But you are correct in that they didn't walk around saying that. That wasn't their message. What they believed about God was clearly recorded at 1 Cor 8:6.
    They never said it at all and it is a major doctrine. JEsus was just a man to JWs. Major doctrine that the weight of scripture speaks highly against.
    (1 Corinthians 8:6) there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.
    I am not going to discuss with you the limits of English. You guys focus on "me" and "and" as those these little words limit who God is.
    No trinity there. No Jesus is God there. But only one God, the Father. And they mention the one God made our Lord as well. Jesus. Not God, but Lord. We must respect the one Jehovah made our Lord. Since God gave his this position, rejecting Jesus is rejecting the God who gave him such authority.
    No, Jesus was with the Father before He was born of Mary. Not made. No history of what happened before Genesis 1. There is no "God made Jesus" in the Bible. But as you seem to not be able to see what the text says I will quote it, "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." No mention of the history of Jesus. One God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit from the beginning of our world. That is what it says. Jesus the Christ was not created and then went onto create the whole world, god but not GOD. Absurd. Only God can creat and since Jesus created, He is GOD. Pretty clear what Paul knew.
    Phil 2:9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
    None of this limits who God is, who Jesus is, who the Holy Spirit is and their relationship with one another.
    We were not discussing the word judges, but the fact that these men are called gods. Please stay on topic.[/QUOTE]Where are there scriptures where judges are refered to as gods. That was your point. Where? (You can admit it appears no where if you want. Ps 82 has already been discussed and they are not addressing judges. You need the word "JUDGES" in there. I am asking where judges are called "gods." I know it is no where though.
    Last edited by Dottie; 05-19-2017 at 08:34 AM.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,472
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,142 Times in 928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

    End result?
    The end result is, the Son "will be subject to His Father." Problem is, the Son "is already subject to His Father." Always has been. What does Paul mean?

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,347
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 2,909 Times in 2,301 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jig View Post
    The end result is, the Son "will be subject to His Father." Problem is, the Son "is already subject to His Father." Always has been. What does Paul mean?

    Means Jesus will have accomplished his assignment, and willingly hands the kingdom over to his God and Father.
    Agape,
    TBax

Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •