This is just one of the many times in scripture where Yahweh speaks of other living gods. Give me your thoughts on this one, and then we can discuss some of the many others.
Psalm 82 is prefaced. A psalm of Asaph. What makes you think it is God speaking?
Besides, Yahweh is a false name for God. it is a tetragram (Acronym) God has no name. He is known by His actions and those with whom He associates. He is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, but we can call Him Father.
What would that even mean⌠âalways in a state of being begottenâ? This is a great example of the kinds of nonsensical things people who believe in the Trinity Doctrine must say with a straight face.
Isnât Jesus called the SON of God in this creed? Isnât he said to have been BEGOTTEN and BORN of the Father? Isnât he said to be God from God? Why would two persons who have existed from eternity and make up one entity be considered father and son - one begotten and born of the other/came from the other?
Words have meanings, and everyone understands that a father/son relationship requires one to have existed before the other was begotten/born and became that oneâs son. The one who has not existed as long is of the other one, and came from the other one⌠making the second one the son and the first one the father.
All of those bolded words mean something. They exist for a reason.
No it doesnât. It means a long time ago.
No it doesnât. It means they are both made of the same substance. The fact that I and my son are also both made of the same substance doesnât mean that âeverything that is true ofâ me is also true of my son. The substance of God is spirit. The substance of Jesus and the rest of Godâs heavenly sons (including Satan) is also spirit. Satan and Jesus are both âconsubstantialâ with their Father. It doesnât mean that everything that is true of God is also true of Satan.
The creedâs claim that Jesus was âbegotten, not madeâ is not only moot (since to be begotten IS to be made), but contradicts scriptureâŚ
Proverbs 8:22⌠The LORD created me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.
Colossians 1:15⌠Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
Revelation 3:14⌠These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of GodâŚ
And as a side note, why does this creed mention the third member of your Godhead in passing, as if an afterthought? Why isnât the Spirit also right up there with the âtrue God of true Godâ stuff at the beginning of the creed? By the way, âtrue god of true godâ requires TWO gods, not one. Just like god being with god in the beginning (John 1:1) requires two gods.
This is a baseless claim unless you can show Jesus claiming what you say in scripture. Of course you canât do that, can you?
Look back at the creed again.
ââŚthrough him all things were madeâŚâ
The creed aligns with scripture on this pointâŚ
1 Corinthians 8:6⌠New International Version
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.
Words have meanings. Is there a difference in the words âfromâ and âthroughâ in the verse above? Is there a difference between âone God, the Fatherâ and âone Lord, Jesus Christâ?
The Hebrews used what is commonly known as a âplural of majestyâ or âplural of grandiosityâ. For example, the plural of the Hebrew word âtreeâ could refer to either multiple trees or to one very large/majestic tree. Behemoth in Job is a good example where the plural of âbeastâ is used to describe one very majestic beast instead of multiple beasts. You are correct that we know which use of the plural is meant by whether the verbs/pronouns associated with the statement are singular or plural.
You are incorrect that a plural Hebrew word ever refers to what you call a âplurality of a single subjectâ. The word âbehemothâ could refer to multiple beasts or one beast, but never a âplurality beastâ made up of different persons. Likewise, the plural âelohimâ could refer to multiple gods or one god, but never a âplurality godâ comprised of different persons.
And just so everyone knows, the plural âelohimâ is used to refer to many different gods in the Bible - not just Yahweh. For example, hereâs Yahweh Himself using the plural to refer to some other godsâŚ
1 Kings 11:33⌠I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess [elohim] of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god [elohim] of the Moabites, and Molek the god [elohim] of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomonâs father, did.
I agree that Genesis 2:1-3 should be the conclusion of chapter 1 - not the beginning of chapter 2. But either way, thereâs no doubt those three verse reinforce the fact that God created our world in six daysâŚ
1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
A great king? Or three great kings?
His own power? Or their own power?
His creation? Or their creation?
Donât worry, all Trinitarians do this. Itâs like something is inherently wired into their minds that prevents them from referring to God with âthey/them/theirâ - even though itâs what they claim to believe.
Hereâs a simple testâŚ
John 3:16⌠For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
I can easily say this about my God. Can you say it about yours, Roymond?
For God [a plurality of Father, Son and Spirit] so loved the world that He [They?] gave His [Their?] only begotten Son [Jesus is the Son of the Father, Son and Spirit Godhead, and is therefore both his own Son and his own Father?]
See, this is pure absurdity. One the other handâŚ
God (one person) gave His (singular) Son (a different entity than his own God who gave him).
If you are not Trinitarian no argument will convince you.
However, you need to understand the dynamics of God in human form. What He would appear as, how He would act and be perceived, and what an eyewitness will see. If it was too obvious He could not fulfill His mission. We have had this conversation for many years now. Neither your view nor mine has changed one iota.
We seem to be able to quite easily. Another that should give you more than a clue: Jesus said " Before Abraham was born, I amâ (I like to read it as âI AMâ â one of the more awesome names of God). And unlike your claim earlier, the tense of the Greek verb is correct and its implication clear.
I agree 100% with that. Richard, this disagreement has never been about whether or not the Bible teaches us about EVERYTHING. It has been about whether or not the Bible is the ULTIMATE authority when another source contradicts it on something it DOES teach about. I say yes, and you say no. Does that sum it up in a nutshell?
How do you know that we shouldnât listen to a spirit who denies Christ or demands worship? Where exactly did you learn that, Richard?
By that logic, Gabriel doesnât exist eitherâŚ
Daniel 10:13⌠But the prince of the Persian kingdom restricted me for twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.
Was there another reason that Gabriel didnât come to Daniel until 21 days later than that he simply didnât exist? Could there have been another reason why Baal was unable to perform in the instance to which you refer? Could Baal have been restricted from performing at that time by someone more mighty than himself, like Gabriel was?
It is indeed my opinion that the gods of Egypt whom Yahweh punished are among those spoken of in Psalm 82. On the other hand, it is not simply my opinion that Yahweh passed judgment upon some of His own spirit sons, whom He Himself called gods, in Ps 82. It is written there for all to see. You made no comment about that psalm, and Iâm curious to hear if you accept this Bible teaching about other gods or not. How do you explain that psalm while also claiming there is literally only one god in existence?
But we disagree on which things the bible has authority on ( or claims it)
Donât be cheeky!
You think Daniel is History?
And we have already discussed the truths of the Psalms.
You seem to think that I do not believe the Bible at all, because I do not accept it as you do. May I refer you to Romans 14 please?
It is not a case of whose faith is stronger or weaker. It is a case of perception and how our faith is built and secured. I have a problem that you do not⌠If I were to kill your faith it would be me who gets the millstone, so I have to tread carefully. If you cannot see what I see then fair enough. I can see what you do.
So now weâre back to questioning whether certain scriptures were inspired of God? You did this earlier in the conversation, suggesting that the creation account in Genesis was something Moses (or someone else) just made up out of his own imagination, right? And now the implication is that Asaph just made Ps 82 up out of his own imagination?
What about Ps 8:5, where David says Yahweh made mankind a little lower than the gods? Is that another snippet of the Bible that doesnât count because it was just the imagination of the human writer?
How many of these snippets are there? Do you have a list of verses that are âof Godâ and verses that are not? Or do you only come to these ânot of Godâ conclusions when I bring up a verse that contradicts your current belief system?
God gave us His personal name in Exodus 3:14. It is written as the âtetragrammatonâ YHWH (some say YHVH). From my understanding, it is just the 4 consonants without any vowels. Kind of like we would write âbldgâ for âbuildingâ or âblvdâ for âboulevardâ. Today we know that âbldgâ means âbuildingâ, but years from now someone might add different vowels and assume it means âbulldogâ or something. Thatâs where weâre at with YHWH/YHVH right now. Nobody today knows which vowels were left out, and so some think âJehovahâ, some believe âYahwehâ, and others say itâs âYahuahâ. I am most used to âJehovahâ and âYahwehâ, and use them interchangeably. But neither of them are a âfalse name for Godâ, any more than âJesusâ is a âfalse nameâ for our Lord Yeshua.
Jews cannot speak the name of God. Scripture is designed to be read. Yahweh is a placeholder, just as Lord or even Father would be. It is not a name as such, but it refers specifically to God.
As for the inspiration of ScriptureâŚ
Inspired does not mean dictated. it never has and never will. Scripture is manâs interpretation of the information provided by God. And God is notoriously obtuse. Furthermore, He did not release all the information at once. The view of God changes as Scripture progresses so that by the time we reach Elijah humans cannot even see God without dying.
It is not a case of all or nothing, it is a case of being able to discern the message in amongst the details and stories. The whole point of a parable is not in the even or the characters but the message. The bible is about messages, not science, biology, medicine or even other faiths.
Forgive me, but you have a âsimple faithâ. In many ways that is also scriptural. I am burdened with realities that seem to escape you.
Letâs examine a couple of the psalms Iâm talking aboutâŚ
Psalm 8:5⌠You have made them a little lower than the gods and crowned them with glory and honor.
Did God really make mankind a little lower than His spirit sons and give them great honor and glory of their own? Which part of the statement is figurative?
Psalm 138:1⌠I give You thanks with all my heart; before the gods I sing Your praises.
Which part of David singing Yahwehâs praises before the other gods is figurative?
By the way, âtrue god of true godâ requires TWO gods, not one. Just like god being with god in the beginning (John 1:1) requires two gods.