Are there other beings called gods and there would still be one God (the Father) that there is no other god beside Him.

[williamjordan]

If you can manage to sift through all the material, I think you will find (like I do) that Deut. 32:39 and Isaiah 44-45 are central to the arguments laid out by Paul (1 Cor. 8-10, Heb. 1:6-12) and John (Jn. 1:1-3), particularly when it comes to the notion of pre-existence.

It should also be pointed out that 2 Ezra 6 (especially 6:6) is an early Jewish attempt at understanding Isaiah 44-45 in light of Gen. 1, hence all the "intertextual" allusions made to both throughout. This is precisely what Paul (and John) do, and is particularly a good reason for not rendering Jn. 1:1 in the way Jehovah's Witnesses suggest it be rendered, "the Word was a god."

For one (as expressed previously),

The Word participated in the very work that Isaiah 44-45 solely attributes to God, something that can be said of no other god (Isaiah 44-45). That is the point. It just so happens that in Isaiah 45:4-6, God alone is credited with “forming light,” and “creating darkness.” This statement in Isaiah 45 is an immediate allusion to Gen. 1:1-3, and is something the Word Himself participates in (John 1:1-4; Targum Neofiti on Gen. 1:1-3).

And second (and probably a little bit more technical), Jn. 1:1 has verbal and conceptual affinities with Deut. 32:39 LXX and Isaiah 45:14-15 LXX. These texts do not use a preverbal predicate nominative, but rather—in contrast to Jn. 1:1—place the verb in the same position as Acts 28:6. Why are we not examining Jn. 1:1 in light of OT texts such as these, which have verbal and conceptual ties? Shouldn’t we keep a keen eye towards Isaiah’s (and Deut’s) influence on the Johannine framework?

The verb placement in Jn. 1:1 does not correlate with Deut 32:39 LXX, or Isaiah 45:14 LXX, which speaks of "other gods" existing with God. Rather, it correlates better with texts such as Deut. 4:35 LXX and Josh. 24:17 LXX, where the term, “God” is used qualitatively (rather than indefinitely).

Each time the OT speaks of “a god” being “with” YHWH, it always in a negative light, and places the verb before the noun to give it a sense of “another god.” These are precisely the reasons I reject the NWT, and your understanding of the text.

I am not trying to beat you up, simply trying to (from my perspective), "correct your lens."

 

[Cameron143]

If you can manage to sift through all the material, I think you will find (like I do) that Deut. 32:39 and Isaiah 44-45 are central to the arguments laid out by Paul (1 Cor. 8-10, Heb. 1:6-12) and John (Jn. 1:1-3), particularly when it comes to the notion of pre-existence.

It should also be pointed out that 2 Ezra 6 (especially 6:6) is an early Jewish attempt at understanding Isaiah 44-45 in light of Gen. 1, hence all the "intertextual" allusions made to both throughout. This is precisely what Paul (and John) do, and is particularly a good reason for not rendering Jn. 1:1 in the way Jehovah's Witnesses suggest it be rendered, "the Word was a god."

For one (as expressed previously),



And second (and probably a little bit more technical), Jn. 1:1 has verbal and conceptual affinities with Deut. 32:39 LXX and Isaiah 45:14-15 LXX. These texts do not use a preverbal predicate nominative, but rather—in contrast to Jn. 1:1—place the verb in the same position as Acts 28:6. Why are we not examining Jn. 1:1 in light of OT texts such as these, which have verbal and conceptual ties? Shouldn’t we keep a keen eye towards Isaiah’s (and Deut’s) influence on the Johannine framework?

The verb placement in Jn. 1:1 does not correlate with Deut 32:39 LXX, or Isaiah 45:14 LXX, which speaks of "other gods" existing with God. Rather, it correlates better with texts such as Deut. 4:35 LXX and Josh. 24:17 LXX, where the term, “God” is used qualitatively (rather than indefinitely).

Each time the OT speaks of “a god” being “with” YHWH, it always in a negative light, and places the verb before the noun to give it a sense of “another god.” These are precisely the reasons I reject the NWT, and your understanding of the text.

I am not trying to beat you up, simply trying to (from my perspective), "correct your lens."

He's going to need a whole new prescription with all that you have written.

 

[williamjordan]

He's going to need a whole new prescription with all that you have written.

It will certainly take some time to digest it all, I just hope I laid the posts out in an order that makes good sense, and comes full circle back to the main point. A lot of times we don't catch how the texts are all intertextually related and wind up making a huge boo-boo. Chew it over. Re-read it, make the connections. See it from my vantage point, and then come back here and duke it out with me if you disagree afterwards.

 

[Cameron143]

It will certainly take some time to digest it all, I just hope I laid the posts out in an order that makes good sense, and comes full circle back to the main point. A lot of times we don't catch how the texts are all intertextually related and wind up making a huge boo-boo. Chew it over. Re-read it, make the connections. See it from my vantage point, and then come back here and duke it out with me if you disagree afterwards.

Oh, not me. I'll take your word for it and wait for revelation.

 

[williamjordan]

There are a couple other posts I'll link to that are related. They might help someone, somewhere who is struggling with the idea of pre-existence. See Post #231, 232, 233, 234, and 235: The Trinity.

It is very technical, beware.

 

[williamjordan]

Be the Berean, that is my advice. And if what I say is wrong, come correct.

 

[williamjordan]

He's going to need a whole new prescription with all that you have written.

That's too funny... . You have no idea of all the ways your comments are true. Not only is there plenty to read and digest, there is.

But my comments may even leave his brain itching, requiring even a "new set of glasses" for the "inner most set of eyes." This is a very deep topic and sometimes we miss the finer details and nuances which lay beneath as the foundation to the authors remarks.

 

[Cameron143]

That's too funny... . You have no idea of all the ways your comments are true. Not only is there plenty to read and digest, there is.

But my comments may even leave his brain itching, requiring even a "new set of glasses" for the "inner most set of eyes." This is a very deep topic and sometimes we miss the finer details and nuances which lay beneath as the foundation to the authors remarks.

I'll wait for the Cliff Notes version

 

[BearerOfTheMorningStar]

No there is no other God or gods. God is the only God from the beginning to the end. PRAISE JESUS!

Isaiah 43:10-11

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

[Karlon]

simply, yes!

 

[Bruce_Leiter]

Might "beside him" mean next to Him or at the same level or the one God of all, rather than the only God?
1Tim 1: 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
"the only wise God" seems to indicate that out of a collection of gods, He is the only one that is wise.
Heb 1: 8 But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Is that one intelligence talking to another intelligence or to Himself? One is calling the other God, with a kingdom to rule with a scepter of righteousness. To be righteous means to obey the will of the Father. Jesus said that His bread was to do the will of the Father. It seems that the Father is rewarding Christ with the oil of gladness above His fellows (all other beings are created beings) and giving Him a kingdom which is His (Christ) body made up of souls of Christians throughout humanity with Christ as the Head as our God, Lord, and Savior. Just as Jesus prayed to the Father and to His God, the Father is the one God of all.

Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are the ONE only true God, whom we serve and worship. Otherwise, we don't have the true God.

 

[wattie]

'ye are gods' ... Jesus is talking about judges or magistrates in this line.

 

[CorrectiveLens]

There can only be one God for God means supreme being, and we know there is no greater than the God of Israel so He can be the only God.

That is why God said that He knows of no other God, and there is no God beside Him, and there was no God formed before Him, and there shall be no God formed after Him.

Also a created god makes no sense because it would be made of physical matter and what kind of a god is that, and would not be the supreme being to be called god.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh so Jesus is the supreme being.

There is no other gods except the God of Israel for He is the supreme being, and everything else that is made is made of physical matter.

A physical matter being can never be a god unless it is meant that they have more power than the wicked when they receive their glorified bodies.

Seems to me that what He (Christ) is saying is that there was a time before He existed and that He is the only God formed. The Father has always existed and was never formed.
Isaiah 63: 9-10 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bore them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed His Holy Spirit; therefore, He was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.
In this scripture Isaiah is stating that the Holy Spirit is the angel of God's (the Father's) presence. Where His Holy Spirit is, the Father is.
Eph 1: 13 In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also after ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
The order is hearing the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation), believing and trusting, and getting sealed with the Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit takes place after ye believed. Receiving the Holy Spirit of God means that God is present in you and you are sealed as part of the body of Christ and in the Family of the Father.
Christ is filled with the Father's Spirit (Glory). The Father is the invisible God, and Christ is the image of the invisible God because the Father works His will and empowers Christ since Christ sits on the right hand of the Father ( which means that the Father accomplishes His will through Christ). In order for Christ to be righteous He has to have His own will otherwise He would just be an obedient robot. The Son was formed out of the Father's essence with His own mind, heart, and soul. He was not created out of nothing. The Son's being is a temple for the Father and both share a divine love for each other where the Son is willingly obedient to the Father and the Father makes Him Lord of all creation. After Christ became a man and was obedient unto death, He went back to the Father to get glorified ( given a spiritual body and a kingdom of born again believers). Throughout human history people believe and are filled with the Father's Spirit through Christ who is the God active in the Old Testament. As part of Christ's spiritual body, we become One with the Father and Son because they both reside in us and fill us with the divine love that is necessary to obey the Spirit of the Law which is to love God first and everyone else as we love ourselves. The Father baptizes by granting repentance. The Son baptizes by erasing committed sins. The Holy Spirit baptizes by perfecting us through the Spirit of the Law.