Who IS "The Only TRUE God"- as Jesus put it?

[Midnight Pete]

Exactly.......:clap

Seems as though a big portion of todays christianity (not all sects) is a catch all religion....incorporating multiple pagan ideas, traditions and rituals....(i.e easter, christmas etc...) and the concept of the trinity was just one amongst many other pagan practices/traditions/ideas added to the fold.

Congratulations, you've got it all figured out.

 

[search the scriptures]

pegg: "I think i need to point out clearly that we dont disagree with the position Jesus holds as the one who created all things"

do you not beleive paul?

pegg: "The Messiah is a means to an end...he is the means and God is the end. In other words, our goal is to become one with God...not one with Jesus."

If you are one with jesus you are one with God...

 

[search the scriptures]

God is: the father, the word, and the holy spirit.

If I say Jesus/the word alone is JEHOVAH/God, that would be wrong.
The word is not the father, and not the holy spirit and by himself is not JEHOVAH.
However JEHOVAH = the father, the word(of JEHOVAH), and the holy spirit(of JEHOVAH).

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

hear o Israel: JEHOVAH our elohim is one JEHOVAH

elohim = gods

Jesus is Divine

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus is divine because Jesus according to Revelation [3v14 b] is a heavenly creation.

 

[search the scriptures]

by divine i mean :
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate;

G3588 :
ho hē to
ho, hay, to
The masculine, feminine (second) and neuter (third) forms, in all their inflections; the definite article; the

(Joh 1:3)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God is a title.
Isaiah calls Jesus as Mighty God
But no where in Scripture is Jesus called Almighty God.

 

[search the scriptures]

"But no where in Scripture is Jesus called Almighty God."

wrong...
Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Almighty :
παντοκράτωρ
pantokratōr
pan-tok-rat'-ore
From G3956 and G2904; the all ruling, that is, God (as absolute and universal sovereign): - Almighty, Omnipotent.

Rev 1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Almighty :
παντοκράτωρ
pantokratōr
pan-tok-rat'-ore
From G3956 and G2904; the all ruling, that is, God (as absolute and universal sovereign): - Almighty, Omnipotent.

"Isaiah calls Jesus as Mighty God"

Isaiah calls Jesus "The" mighty God

"God is a title."

God:

the divine Almighty strength/rule of all.

 

[abysslightdarkness]

hi Greetings dear friends
Compliments of the day.
hi sojourner , and those who thinks Jesus is god & trinity

There was no Christian doctrine in Jesus' time, since there was no Xy in Jesus' time. Jesus was a Jew. So were the apostles. However, there is Biblical precedent for an implied trinitarian thought in the Bible, as Athanasius shows.

If the the gospels had the trinity notion they would have showed in their gospels verses ,they don't have to be implied by Athanasius. The gospels showed so clearly that there are no notion of trinity much less implying them.
The notion of trinity arises at least after 250 yrs after jesus death. somehow….someone like Athanasius just gapped some verses like John 1:1 which is so vague to explain its meaning ,thus bend it to mean trinity.

Athanasius : John 1:1 "in the beginning was the word" was Unambiguous. therefore the three parts of the trinity were eternally the same.
Now the verse John 1;1 is not original either they actually follow the text of the ESSENCe called the 'Law'

John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and theWordwas God.2 He was in the beginning with God.

Essence text 'the Law'
In the beginning was theLaw and theLaw was with God, and theLaw was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Only difference they changed the word 'Law' to 'Word'. How fake is this ? this is plagiarism.
However ,this verse had its history i will mention it in detail later

Because it shows that the concept of trinity was developed very, very early. The establishment of Xy in Ireland predates Constantine.

how early ? in your information

Surely you can think of much better and reliable resources than wikipedia? Even the Didache mentions a trinitarian formula for baptism, and it dates from about the same time as John's gospel

Yes of course, wikipedia its more convenient resource for the public to access. that is why… and i think the dates you are referring is the dates of the trinity verses insertions and i know its definitely not in the times of John. please reference them if Didache did mentioned trinity!!!! thank you.


From the Didache

"Willy Rordorf considered the first five chapters as "essentially Jewish, but the Christian community was able to use it" by adding the "evangelical section".[16] "Lord" in the Didache is reserved usually for "Lord God", while Jesus is called "the servant" of the Father (9:2f.; 10:2f.).[17] Baptism was practised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[18] Scholars "generally agree that 9:10 represents an earlier tradition that was gradually replaced by the trinity of names."[17][19] A similarity with Acts 3 is noted by Aaron Milavec: both see Jesus as "the servant (pais)[20] of God".[21] The community is presented as "awaiting the kingdom from the Father as entirely a future event".[21]" (see wikipedia)

which means that scripture was written in different times in parts ,not the whole of the manuscript dates in the same era. this again proves that the trinity notions is a much later work of insertions which also means a created notion not from "Jesus word"

In conclusion, the trinitarian understanding was extant long before Constantine.

In conclusion ,the trinitarian notion is not long before Constantine he only legalized it . you are inaccurate. the trinity is not a wide spread idea that time only Constantine made it more accepted and popular so that he can rule his empire with unification.

warmest regards.
happy reading

 

[icebuddy]

FIRSTBORN

The term Firstborn also carries the meaning of “Birth”, something that only happens on Earth, not in Heaven. So the question arises, When was Jesus Born? Jesus was born on earth some 2000 years ago, and only at this time became the Fathers “Firstborn Son”. To say Jesus was “born” or “birthed” in heaven is not something scripture supports and is bizarre.
tom

 

[Dirty Penguin]

hi Greetings dear friends
Compliments of the day.
hi sojourner , and those who thinks Jesus is god & trinity



If the the gospels had the trinity notion they would have showed in their gospels verses ,they don't have to be implied by Athanasius. The gospels showed so clearly that there are no notion of trinity much less implying them.
The notion of trinity arises at least after 250 yrs after jesus death. somehow….someone like Athanasius just gapped some verses like John 1:1 which is so vague to explain its meaning ,thus bend it to mean trinity.

Athanasius : John 1:1 "in the beginning was the word" was Unambiguous. therefore the three parts of the trinity were eternally the same.
Now the verse John 1;1 is not original either they actually follow the text of the ESSENCe called the 'Law'

John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and theWordwas God.2 He was in the beginning with God.

Essence text 'the Law'
In the beginning was theLaw and theLaw was with God, and theLaw was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Only difference they changed the word 'Law' to 'Word'. How fake is this ? this is plagiarism.
However ,this verse had its history i will mention it in detail later


how early ? in your information



Yes of course, wikipedia its more convenient resource for the public to access. that is why… and i think the dates you are referring is the dates of the trinity verses insertions and i know its definitely not in the times of John. please reference them if Didache did mentioned trinity!!!! thank you.


From the Didache

"Willy Rordorf considered the first five chapters as "essentially Jewish, but the Christian community was able to use it" by adding the "evangelical section".[16] "Lord" in the Didache is reserved usually for "Lord God", while Jesus is called "the servant" of the Father (9:2f.; 10:2f.).[17] Baptism was practised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[18] Scholars "generally agree that 9:10 represents an earlier tradition that was gradually replaced by the trinity of names."[17][19] A similarity with Acts 3 is noted by Aaron Milavec: both see Jesus as "the servant (pais)[20] of God".[21] The community is presented as "awaiting the kingdom from the Father as entirely a future event".[21]" (see wikipedia)

which means that scripture was written in different times in parts ,not the whole of the manuscript dates in the same era. this again proves that the trinity notions is a much later work of insertions which also means a created notion not from "Jesus word"





In conclusion ,the trinitarian notion is not long before Constantine he only legalized it . you are inaccurate. the trinity is not a wide spread idea that time only Constantine made it more accepted and popular so that he can rule his empire with unification.

warmest regards.
happy reading

Right....and back then it wasn't surprising for pagan tribes to have triune gods. It doesn't matter whether they worshiped three goods but they were not coequal or seen as one distinct entity even though some did. Christianity, on the surface, when it was taking root seemed to be against pagan practices etc. but they became part of the culture any how. The concept of trinity is no exception considering a lot of people already embraced and had trinitarian practice within their own pagan beliefs. Sort of similar how the Romans adopted the Greek gods and goddesses but changing the names.

 

[icebuddy]

the fact is that the writings of the earliest church fathers DO NOT present any sort of trinity teaching. Even at the Council of Nicaea in 325CE, the trinity doctrine was still incomplete as a doctrine because there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead at that time. So its not correct to claim that the trinity was taught or believed by Christians any earlier then the 3rd century.

Pegg,
I see the Trinity in scriptures today. You may think it wasnt thought of in Jesus's time, but who really invented the Trinity? Was it Thomas that said, "My Lord and My God" to Jesus or was it John who said "The word was with God and was God", or was with Isaiah who called Jesus, "Mighty God" and "Jehovah", or was it Jesus himself who was called Good Teacher and he asked, "Why did you call me good? Only God is Good", or when Jesus called himself "alpha and Omega" or was it Stephen was while dieing look to Jesus and said, "Jesus recieve my spirit", or was it Moses who wrote, "Let US Create man in our Image", or was it any of the other writers of the bible?

The Facts are that Beliefs exist before they are writen down and made a Creed. Take the WTBS that has its beginning in the 1800's. Ask yourself, did Gods kingdom exist before the WTBS was formed? Did anyone believe as JW do today before the 1800's? To say the "trinity" concepts where not believed until 325 is bizare.

Look at Jesus's desiples, they were with Jesus for a few years and didnt fully believe him until his resurrection. Some didnt even write things down until 20 years after Jesus died and rose again, does that mean they didnt believe until then? They also didnt have the internet to spread the word that took time as well. Also, the Jews today dont acept Jesus as their savior, so does that mean it didnt happen until the day they understand it?

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

Here we read 2 beings, both being called Jehovah, yet they speak as One God... Look in your own NWT

PS - It has always been there

In Love,
Tom

 

[Dirty Penguin]

God is: the father, the word, and the holy spirit.

If I say Jesus/the word alone is JEHOVAH/God, that would be wrong.
The word is not the father, and not the holy spirit and by himself is not JEHOVAH.
However JEHOVAH = the father, the word(of JEHOVAH), and the holy spirit(of JEHOVAH).

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

hear o Israel: JEHOVAH our elohim is one JEHOVAH

elohim = gods

Jesus is Divine

The problem is this isn't how Aramaic/Hebrew works. There are numerous occurrence of the word "elohim" in your scripture and it is obvious it is rendered as singular ("God"). Ask any Hebrew speaking person here on the board and they will tell you straight out that your interpretation that "elohim", especially in the verse above, does not mean gods (plural).

 

[sojourner]

Athanasius spent years in exile because political and church officials opposed his views that the Son was the same as God. The only one who 'implied' the trinity was Athanasius himself. If it was obvious then the church would have readily accepted it...but it didnt. It was highly controversial and the idea was fought by a majority of christians for many decades.

It seemed to receive wide support prior to Nicea.

trinitarianism was deeply imbedded throughout the pagan world, it first being expounded by Plato who lived some 400 years before the birth of Christ. The gods of egypt were in groups of three as were the babylonian gods. And considering the celts were pagans its really not surprising that those who converted to Christianity in later times would readily accept the idea of a trinity. But that in no way proves that the NT writers or Jesus taught the idea. Its a well established fact that the idea came much later.

Much later? What about the Didache (written about the same time as John)?

the fact is that the writings of the earliest church fathers DO NOT present any sort of trinity teaching. Even at the Council of Nicaea in 325CE, the trinity doctrine was still incomplete as a doctrine because there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead at that time. So its not correct to claim that the trinity was taught or believed by Christians any earlier then the 3rd century.

See above. Unless you think John was written later...

the idea was introduced by christian teachers who had diverged from the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus in favor of pagan teachings. The christians who still teach it today are not teaching christianity but teaching pagan religion....that goes for other teachings which also come from Pagan religions such as hellfire and purgatory and the eternal soul

"Christianity" was, very early on, a largely Gentile religion. It's Jewish roots were eclipsed well before the 200s.

 

[sojourner]

Exactly.......:clap

Seems as though a big portion of todays christianity (not all sects) is a catch all religion....incorporating multiple pagan ideas, traditions and rituals....(i.e easter, christmas etc...) and the concept of the trinity was just one amongst many other pagan practices/traditions/ideas added to the fold.

Added... by whom, exactly? The concept of Trinity appears so early in Xy -- implied by at least John and Paul (who were both Jews), that it's really difficult to argue for "inaccuracy by virtue of late addition." Additionally, we're all aware that Xy is a broad amalgamation. It's not a religion, or a belief system, so much as it is a way of life that can embrace many (if not all) cultural expressions.

 

[Pegg]

Hi Tom,
I can totally understand how people can read what 'appear' to be trinity texts in the bible, but this has more to do with 'translation' & 'interpretation' and i'd like to show you how in each of the examples of scripture you've posted here.

Pegg,
I see the Trinity in scriptures today. You may think it wasnt thought of in Jesus's time, but who really invented the Trinity? Was it Thomas that said, "My Lord and My God"

This verse in no way is proof that Thomas is calling Jesus 'God Almighty'
The Greek text actually reads more like an exclamation of astonishment rather then anything else and there are many scholars who have put that meaning to the text. In the Greek it reads “My Lord and my God!" which literally means, “The Lord of me and the God (ho The‧os&#8242 of me!”
Its is like me replying to something that you might have said with "Oh my God!"
I'm not calling you my God, but its simply an exclamation of astonishment.
Also, consider that Jesus had earlier sent his disciples the message, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” so what reason could Thomas have had to think that Jesus was Almighty God? None. Thats why John , after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" and not that you may believe that 'Jesus is God'.

or was it John who said "The word was with God and was God",

Did you realise that in this scripture there are two expressions used with regard to God. ton The‧on′ is one and means 'the God'
And the other is simplythe.on` and it means god

So the greek text actually is identifying two separate individuals...one called 'the God' and the other simply called 'god' and here are how some bibles have translated this verse:

1808 “and the word was a god”
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word”
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine”
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god”
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

Jesus is a god because he exists in Gods form. He is a spirit which makes him 'godlike' or 'divine' in nature.

or was with Isaiah who called Jesus, "Mighty God" and "Jehovah",

Isaiah never called Jesus Jehovah. He said that 'by Jehovahs zeal', Jesus will rule as the prince of peace forever.
Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end...The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.

So Isaiah was saying that Jesus will become all these things because Jehovah will make him such.

or was it Jesus himself who was called Good Teacher and he asked, "Why did you call me good? Only God is Good"

If Jesus was God, why would he object to being called 'good' but in the same breath claim that only God is good?

That doesn't make much sense. It seems that Jesus did not want the man to call him good but would rather the man direct his compliment to God instead.

or when Jesus called himself "alpha and Omega"

Revelation is tricky because it was given to John by God through an Angel AND through Jesus Christ, hence the one speaking (through an angel) at times is God himself, but at other times it is Jesus speaking. But there are only 3 occurances of the term.

The KJV has the first occurance at Revelation 1:8 where it is directly linked with 'The Almighty' so yes, the Alpha and Omega is the Almighty God in this verse.

Its second occurrence is at 1:11 where it is obviously speaking about Jesus because he is identifed in vs 13 as 'Son of Man'. However, not all translations have 'A&O' in this verse because it isnt found in the earliest manuscripts such as the Alexandrine, Sinaitic, and Codex Ephraemi rescriptus. The KJV put A&O in this verse as an addition....it should not be there so its use to identify Jesus is forged. Perhaps the translators were allowing their bias to color their translation.

the third verse is at Revelation 21:6, and the following verse identifies the speaker by saying: “Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” We know that Jesus referred to those who were to inherit the heavenly kingdom as his “brothers” and so its not logical that the speaker is Jesus in this verse because he never called his disciples his 'Sons'.
The speaker must be The Father, Jehovah God who is, for the second time, called 'the alpha and omega'

or was it Stephen was while dieing look to Jesus and said, "Jesus recieve my spirit"

have you thought that perhaps Stephen said this because of his understanding that only through Jesus can salvation be gained?
"No one comes to the father except through me" Jesus said...it seems logical that upon death, Stephen would acknowledge that his salvation would come through Jesus because that is the role that Jesus had been assigned.

or was it Moses who wrote, "Let US Create man in our Image"

And this is once again showing the relationship of Jesus and his father Jehovah. There is no question that Jesus was with God at the creation, but that fact does not in any way prove that Jesus is Jehovah. If Jesus was Jehovah then the verse would make no sense anyway because God would be talking to himself.

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

This verse is opposed to the idea of a triune God. 'There is no God beside me'.... I think that really shows that the one who was beside God at the creation was obviously not a 'God' in the same way that Jehovah is God. Nor is the holy spirit mentioned as standing beside God as a God.

 

[Pegg]

Much later? What about the Didache (written about the same time as John)?

Hi sojourner,

Tell me, do you think that the following prayer contains evidence of a trinity?

“We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name’s sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant.”

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner,

Tell me, do you think that the following prayer contains evidence of a trinity?

“We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name’s sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant.”

Tell me, do you think that the following instructions for baptism contain evidence of the Trinity?

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
(Didache)

the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church's order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church's life. Fragments of the Didache were found at Oxyrhyncus (P. Oxy 1782) from the fourth century and in coptic translation (P. Lond. Or. 9271) from 3/4th century. Traces of the use of this text, and the high regard it enjoyed, are widespread in the literature of the second and third centuries especially in Syria and Egypt. It was used by the compilator of the Didascalia (C 2/3rd) and the Liber Graduun (C 3/4th), as well as being absorbed in toto by the Apostolic Constitutions (C c. 3/4th, abbreviated as Ca) and partially by various Egyptian and Ethiopian Church Orders, after which it ceased to circulate independently. Athanasius describes it as 'appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness' [Festal Letter 39:7]. Hence a date for the Didache in its present form later than the second century must be considered unlikely, and a date before the end of the first century probable.
(from Didache online)

 

[sojourner]

Its is like me replying to something that you might have said with "Oh my God!"

No, it's not. I don't know where you're getting your exegetical information, but it's inconsistent with the best scholarship of the usages of ancient Greek in this context.

Also, consider that Jesus had earlier sent his disciples the message, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” so what reason could Thomas have had to think that Jesus was Almighty God? None. Thats why John , after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" and not that you may believe that 'Jesus is God'.

And yet, John is highly Christological. Your picayune treatment of the turn of the last phrase proves nothing.

Isaiah never called Jesus Jehovah.

Isaiah doesn't mention Jesus. One cannot use Isaiah as exegetical proof of anything to do with Jesus.

Suffice to say that, however the gospel writers couched Jesus' nature, there is clearly an implied Divinity associated with the person of Jesus. In fact, Luke writes his birth narrative as an obvious "rip-off" of the birth of Augustus, who was touted by the Romans as divine.

Trinity makes sense, because it places God's very identity squarely as an expression of community -- of relationship, which is, after all, what faith is: A search for relationship with God.

 

[search the scriptures]

pegg: "Isaiah never called Jesus Jehovah. "

because he is specifically talking about jesus. JEHOVAH = the father, jesus, and holy spirit


pegg : "The KJV has the first occurance at Revelation 1:8 where it is directly linked with 'The Almighty' so yes, the Alpha and Omega is the Almighty God in this verse."

"is the Almighty God in this verse"
i assume you mean it is not jesus talking...

Rev 1:8 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.
which is, and which was, and which is to come =

ho ōn ho ēn ho erchomenos
ho own ho ane ho er-khom'-enos
A phrase combining G3588 with the present participle and imperfect of G1510 and the present participle of G2064 by means of G2532; the one being and the one that was and the one coming.

was coming - messiah to come (OT)
is - christ (living)
is to come - christ (come on clouds) we are waiting for him...

Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

which was, and is, and is to come. same as rev 1:8....

ev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

same words as rev 1:8/rev 4:8

 

[search the scriptures]

pegg: "This verse is opposed to the idea of a triune God. 'There is no God beside me'.... I think that really shows that the one who was beside God at the creation was obviously not a 'God' in the same way that Jehovah is God. Nor is the holy spirit mentioned as standing beside God as a God."

God= Almighty divine strength of all / supreme rule

for trinitarians God is not a person, but an almighty divine ruler & creator

the 3 spirits that are one(in rule, purpose, holiness etc...) in heaven are united as JEHOVAH God

therefore, "there is no god beside me" renders: there is no other Almighty divine strength/power but JEHOVAH