captainbryce
Active Member
Explain. Perhaps I'm just not understanding what you're saying here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians..."Trinity"?
- Thread starter captainbryce
- Start date
World English Bible Deuteronomy 10:17
For Yahweh your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the awesome, who doesn't respect persons, nor takes reward.
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.
We might define god as someone or something that causes reality to be redirected. The True God is every other god's or lord's god.
For Yahweh your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the awesome, who doesn't respect persons, nor takes reward.
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.
We might define god as someone or something that causes reality to be redirected. The True God is every other god's or lord's god.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Kind of scary when you stop to think about it? If every single solitary reference to a "god" in the Bible is referring to a "false god," then that would make Yahweh the God of false gods. Makes you wonder if we'll somehow interpreting that one incorrectly, doesn't it?
Haha. One does not have to admit, approve of, or worship The God for The God to be true. God is head of all. Some people say God is the head of every believer but I believe all is all. Anyway false gods are powerless. They are not scary at all.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Oh, I couldn't agree more; they are indeed powerless and "not scary at all." But do you believe that God is their God, too? Is He the God of false gods, and if He is, what implications does that statement have?
The implication is The True God has no choice but to rule over what is.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Couldn't The True God simply cause the false gods to cease to exist? I would think He has a choice in pretty much everything?
Couldn't The True God simply cause the false gods to cease to exist? I would think He has a choice in pretty much everything?
Fine. So what are you saying? A choice and a real choice are different imho. No real choice right now. Later on I hear, soon, it is said, God will do just what you say.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Not trying trying to argue. Just raising a question really. No, "a choice" and "a real choice" are exactly the same thing. I'm just thinking that, IMO, God could solve the problem of "false gods" if He wanted to, simply by willing them out of the picture.
But that's not what I was originally getting at. I was actually originally thinking that maybe the other "gods" mentioned in the scriptures aren't necessary "bad" (as "false" seems to imply that they are). Maybe they're just some sort of entity we don't really understand and that have nothing whatsoever to do with us. Maybe they are said to be "false gods" because they have no power over us and are incapable of judging us or saving us. They're only "false gods" if we see them as "true." Otherwise, if we simply acknowledge the fact that the Bible refers to them and says that God is the God over them, too, the problem of their existence is pretty much solved. I don't know who or what they are supposed to be, but if God is the "God of gods," that has to mean something, and I don't see it as meaning that God presently has to just try to ignore their presence because He is powerless to do otherwise.
I'm curious about one thing... In Genesis, we read the following: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Who were the "gods" God was saying Adam and Eve would be like if they were to eat the forbidden fruit? Based on the fact that just a few verses later, after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, we read, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Who is the "us" He's referring to? What do you think?
Last edited:
Powerless? I suspect it takes much MORE power to be patient while the people trust in their false gods.
They do not have power in their own right. They exercise power through people's obedience to them. They are not harmless. Why do they exist? Removing them will harm the children of God. When the children of God learn not to be harmed by their removal, they will be removed. We are off topic. Haven't done it for awhile. It was due, I guess. Sorry OP. :sorry1:
:help:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hey, I'm sorry! :sad::sorry1:
it's OK. Two is better than one.
And three is the charm. Hey! Back on topic!
captainbryce
Active Member
They are false gods because they are made up (a false teaching)!
I think you're missing the point. There are no other gods! Any belief in another god is a false belief. The god of such a false belief is therefore a false god.
Deuteronomy 32:39
Look now; I myself am he! There is no other god but me...
1 Kings 8:60
Then people all over the earth will know that the Lord alone is God and there is no other.
Isaiah 43:10
...There is no other Godthere never has been, and there never will be.
You're reading from the King James, which has translated this scripture badly. There are no gods (plural) in this scripture. It says that they will be as God (singular), and every other translation of the bible renders it this way.
God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil. (NLT)
For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (NIV)
For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (NASB)
for God doth know that in the day of your eating of it -- your eyes have been opened, and ye have been as God, knowing good and evil. (Young's Literal Translation)
that one-knowing Elohim that in day-of to-eat-of you from him and they-are-unclosed eyes-of-you and you become as Elohim ones-knowing-of good and evil (Interlinear Hebrew to English)
We don't know exactly who the "us" is in this scripture. The only thing we know for sure is that it is NOT "other gods". It is possible that the "us" refers simply to angels (who reside in heaven with God, and who would know good and evil by then).
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I have nothing to say to you, captain. I'm just a stupid Mormon, remember? I am therefore incapable of doing anything except paroting what the LDS Church teaches. You already told me you weren't interested in my opinions, so my only posts on this thread will be in response to someone else's comments, and not yours.
Last edited:
captainbryce
Active Member
I wasn't interested in your opinion as far as whether or not a non-Trinitarian could be considered a Christian, because your opinion is biased. In any other area, I have nothing against your opinion. In any case, I'm sorry you decided to become emotional about something so small and turn into a child about this. You don't have to reply to me if you don't want to (even though you just did). But that doesn't stop me from correcting your errors with regard to scripture (for your benefit or for the benefit of anyone else who may be ignorant on this issue). Don't worry, no thanks are necessary! You're welcome.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Says you.
Sure you do, because if I'm a Mormon, my opinion on all theological matters is biased. Why would I be biased on one matter and not on another?
Emotional? When I agree with your point of view, I'm biased and incapable of independent thought. When I disagree with you, I'm emotional. Ha.
And I won't, unless I happen to feel like it, which I just did.
My errors, huh? You haven't corrected my errors. All you've done is expressed a differing opinion. In case you don't know, I hardly think when I stand before God to be judged, He's going to say, "But Katzpur, my right-hand man here, captainbryce, tried to set you straight!" You don't define what's true and what's false any more than the next guy, Einstein. That's got to be hard for you to hear, but it's the truth.
Good. None offered.
captainbryce
Active Member
Of course says me. I'm the one who asked the question and I'm the one who defines the parameters of the question. My determination of the inappropriateness of your comment as it pertains to my question stands (whether you agree with me or not).
You wouldn't be, nor would anybody. Everybody is biased about something, but that's not the point. The point is, I defined the parameters of this particular question (trinity). And I made it clear that I wasn't looking for an answer from people who have a doctrine against the trinity. What would be the point of that? Anyway, all of this has already been explained, so I can only assume that either you didn't read my previous posts, or you didn't comprehend them.
Neither of those statements would be accurate. However THIS particular response is demonstrative of your emotional nature and inability to separate your emotions from a theological debate.
So you keep saying. And yet, here we are again!
Now you're just being silly. I haven't made any attempt to define what is true or not. With regard to the scripture in question, pointing out that your translation of it was incorrect happens to be a matter of fact, not "opinion". This is easily verifiable with the proof support that I added in the way of alternate texts. I don't know why you're being obtuse about this. How old are you by the way? You seem very young!
