Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Библията Тв | PentecostalTheology.com
HAVE YOU HEARD THIS ONE: Yahweh was one of the Sons of El Elyon
1 Yahweh, the GOD of Judaism and Christianity, was in fact one of the sons of the true God El Elyon
2 El Elyon was the Most High God and the creator of the universe but Yahweh was one of the sons of El Elyon, who along with his other brothers received an inheritance from his Father El and was made a ruler of ancient Israel.
3 Moses states in Dt. 32:7-8 that many generations before his time, the Most High, that is, Elyon, as the Hebrew text has it, separated the descendants of Adam and therefore humanity according to their tribes and He allocated a territory to each tribe that is later referred to as a nation. Jacob, that is, Israel
4 MT [masoretic text] erroneously has “sons of Israel” [bene yisrael], but the versions [e.g., LXX, Symm, Old Latin] and a scroll from Qumran support the reading “sons of God” [bene elim.]
5 David knew that other nations were ruled by the sons of Elyon and that only the land of Israel was the heritage or inheritance of Yahweh. He believed that if he was forced into exile he would have no choice but worship the god of that foreign land
6 Jephtah (Judges 11:23-25) regarded as hero of faith in Hebrews 11, most definitely recognised that Chemosh was an existing god and actually a legitimate god of the Ammonites.
7 King Ahaz believed that Yahweh was not the only GOD (2 Chronicles 28:23)
8 The Bible shows that some original names like Elnathan were later changed to Yehonathan. Eliakim to Yehoyakim. Elishaphat to Yehoshaphat etc. etc. El Berith in other source is Baal Berith.
Rick Wadholm Jr [09/13/2015 12:34 AM]
Yes…sadly.
John Kissinger [09/13/2015 8:38 AM]
is it proper to assess it as Cabalistic and bordering dualism?
Pentecostal Theology [09/13/2015 11:12 AM]
Any thoughts? Timothy Carter Peter A Vandever
Timothy D McCune [09/13/2015 11:29 AM]
Another lie from the devil.
Rich Israel [09/13/2015 11:39 AM]
This history of religions stuff is not the issue. One needs to work theologically at the OT. It is not how it developed (progressive revelation) that is critical, but what the OT aspires to and expresses theologically that is crucial – what is the OT kerygma? (The NT church had its own issues to work out as well.)
Timothy D McCune [09/13/2015 11:43 AM]
It’s heresy so let those who know it condemn it, and those that wrote it.
John Kissinger [09/13/2015 12:16 PM]
I heard it at a Pentecostal lecture proposing that the idea of the Trinity is not purely Greco-Roman theology but it derives from a much earlier writings and oral tradition which were part of the First Temple
Bertrum Sage [09/13/2015 2:08 PM]
James Armstrong [09/13/2015 8:42 PM]
False, 100% blasphemy.
Timothy Carter [09/14/2015 4:54 AM]
I have have heard something like this before. Rick Wadholm Jr I think it is Ricky Martin in O Testament class. He was telling us different ideas for the past. I am not sure it was Rick. But you would get a better dialogue with him than I.
David Lewayne Porter [03/07/2016 10:05 PM]
Yawn.
Charlie Robin
Morry Deed I am admittedly no expert on this and perhaps others in the group are much more knowledgeable on the subject but lets start with that MT [masoretic text] erroneously has “sons of Israel” [bene yisrael], but the versions [e.g., LXX, Symm, Old Latin] and a scroll from Qumran support the reading “sons of God” [bene elim.] I heard it at Pentecostal scholars lecturing that the idea of the Trinity is not purely Greco-Roman theology but it derives from a much earlier writings and oral tradition which were part of the First Temple… Tony Conger it is exclusive b/c it alludes dualistic (if not pluralistic) incarnation …
Tony Conger
How?
Morry Deed
I may be simple yet I just believe in one true God who can be anywhere all at one time. I’m almost oneness yet believe God can be Son Father and Spirit all at one time (and is) without disruption to his One & only Status ?
Morry Deed
Though who can truly fathom!
Tony Conger
Sorry but yall are getting off the road into the mud.
Charlie Robin
Tony Conger Denying eternal sonship of Christ via the 70 sons Mid-eastern mythology proposes a number of questions:
1. if there were others sons – when were they born?
2. that propose at least 70 more sonship questions if not 72 or even 70×70 – – – who was born who was crated as Lucifer was and so on…
3. On Lucifer for example we also arrive to the dualism argument of the ancient heresy of Pavlikenians and Bogomils were rejected by the Orthodox church exactly on the ground of dualistic sonship (and birth) of Jesus and Satan
4. the main Trinitarian argument of the same substance of God (Homoousiosis) takes place namely in the eternal Sonship of Christ – or how else would the substance of God exist if not eternally?
5. the arch. Michael question brought in the discussion is also an important one – was Michael the Angel of the Lord as claimed by some? Such claim could be true only after the eternal sonshsip of Christ is rejected
6. The change of “ROLES” of Christ in the Old vs New Testament should be interchangeable not self – excluding one from another
7. And finally, an eternal sacrifice on the cross for all sins and peoples ones and for all could not be provided by a Son who was not Son eternally or the supporters of such claim would need to agree that the sacrifice is valid for people and sins only after the incarnation – if we limit the eternal Son within the scope of our own human time and reality only
For reason 7 I often ask Ricky Grimsley – before the foundation of the world or before the fall of the worlds… It matters!
Tony Conger
This is nonsense and nothing to do with scripture. Accepting the idea of sonshipbeing references to humanity does none of These things.
Charlie Robin
The Trinitarian argument of the same substance of God (Homoousiosis) has everything to do with the Bible and apostle John resolves it in his Prologue when he refers to the mono-genic God (twice). That solves any and all further arguments if there were any other mono-genic sons beside Jesus Christ and proves that the nature of God in Christ cannot exist temporary. Christ is the Eternal Son; no other sons of the same substance as God which on terms proves the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity as well. Or one is left with the rejection of all…
Tony Conger
It’s nonsense because the sonship being the incarnation DOES NOT in and of itself imply other sons!
Tony Conger
You’re just wanting to run with that because you want to prove the eternal sonship
Charlie Robin
Actually there’s a whole mid-eastern tradition behind the small part posted here that has always purposed to deny that Jesus was the Son of God. Starts somewhere in the NT if you’ve noticed. And can we stick to the topic instead of ad-hominem pls (no punt intended)
Tony Conger
Who’s here is denying that Jesus is the son of God????
Charlie Robin
The ones who believe He was the Word but not the Son until the incarnation. And not just a son or any son but the mono-genic Son/God ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός/theos #sonne
Tony Conger
What??? Now you’re taking it to extremes. No one is saying that
Charlie Robin
Ap. John said: ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός/theos #sonne
Ricky Grimsley
How can you be an eternal son in the past. He would have to have a beginning. I dont believe Yahweh is the son of some other God. As far as 70 or 72 “sons of god, i think the scripture bares out that God had at least 72 “sons” that he divided the nations up to.Duet. 32:8 has “sons of God” in the ESV whereas it is “sons of israel”in the KJV. But it cant be Israel because there wasnt an israel at the time referred to. Man followed his own path after he flood and he confused their language and separated by nation and put and angel in charge of each one. God picked Abraham to deal with and redeem back the world. In Psalm 82The psalmist explains that The angels had taught the people wickedness and unrighteous judgement. Instead of turning man back to yahweh that had began to accept worship for themselves as false Gods. Perhaps this is why Jesus sent out the 70 or 72 with power over demons to take back what the enemy had stolen.
Charlie Robin
You’ve got no way of explaining Job 1:6 without Christ’s eternal sonship and then you end up with dualism
Ricky Grimsley
I explain it fine. The sons of god are angels. They came to talk to god. Satan was there because he was one of them. What does this have to do with jesus?
Charlie Robin
Was Jesus there? Was he created or eternal Son? – and there’s your answer! Even DAKE is forced to admit that if sonship refers to deity, then this deity had a beginning on a certain day and He was not eternal. If you believe Jesus was just the word than according to the Bible the word was MADE flesh – are you saying Jesus was made son and not everlasting ?
Ricky Grimsley
The word submitted to sonship and incarnation. That office or role had a beginning just like his priestly role and even his kingship. Jesus said “before abraham was i am”. Jesus had no beginning but his role as son did.
David Lewayne Porter
And where does it say His sonship began?
It says a body was created for Him, and also that His earthly – fleshly – human existence was revealed.
So where do you get that His sonship started there?
Just a though,
The Word became Flesh, yet The Word was in the beginning, The Word was with God, and The Word was God.
So, did The Word change, or just His Revelation to humanity?
Ricky Grimsley
The word did not change. Just how he related to the world change. We got a deeper revelation of God through the express image of the invisible in whom all of the fulness dwelled bodily. If you had seen him you saw the father. Just like Isaiah did
David Lewayne Porter
Exactly
That was my entire point for asking that.
David Lewayne Porter
And to clarify
It was the way the world related to Him and The Father that changed also.
Ricky Grimsley
So what is the purpose of scriptures like
Hebrews 4:14-15 KJVS
[14] Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. [15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Are we to believe that jesus suffered and was tempted so we would believe he could understand our pain because we wouldnt have enough faith to believe that an all-knowing God could understand us or did The God-head limit himself to experience the actual feelings to “know”.
David Lewayne Porter
Ricky
“Are we to believe that jesus suffered and was tempted so we would believe he could understand our pain because we wouldnt have enough faith to believe that an allb-knowing God could understand us”
That would be my choice. That we can rely on Him because He experienced and has actual knowledge instead of intuitive knowledge.
But to cover,
“or did The God-head limit himself to experience the actual feelings to “know”.”.
Here is a question for your question,
“was a part of the God-Head ever human (wrapped in the frailty of humanity) without being the begotten Son of God, being virgin born into time as the son of man, son of David”?
Intuitively God knew, yet He experienced it through the incarnation for the sake of being our eternal passover and for our confidence in Him to increase.
Ricky Grimsley
I hate when we get to intuitive vs experiential. We cant see eye2eye here. I understand the difference. However, i still assert that for God to have exhaustive foreknowledge and not learn anything, he would still have to already the experiential knowledge you speak of from before creation. That’s why i lean toward open-theism. To be consistent you always end with a settled future from God’s first thought (if you can go back to his first thought since its not like God becomes newly aware or learns any new info…right?)
David Lewayne Porter
Lol
AND that Bro Ricky
Is one of the places we disagree.
Charlie Robin
OK Ricky Grimsley so how do you then interpret John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός
Charlie Robin
Hey Ricky Grimsley Tony Conger ya’ll are killing me with your humanistic logic trying to explaining away the Trinity. Thus being one step away to tell me that the Holy Trinity Father Son and the Holy Ghost was in the beginning Father Word and the Holy Ghost and needed human flesh to be fully realized as the the Holy Trinity Now what’s next? One more step and you shall propose that the Holy Ghost was just wind in Genesis until the day of Pentecost? I cannot be the only Pentecostal preacher left who believes in the Holy Trinity Father Son and the Holy Ghost or am I? David Lewayne Porter 🙂
David Lewayne Porter
Agreed, see my reply to his comment above.
Tony Conger
I believe in the trinity and Good was no less triune prior to the incarnation than he was after. You’re just trying to mischaracterize it. You’re asserting things that neither Ricky nor i said nor do we believe
David Lewayne Porter
Tony,
Ricky’s comes across as if he does believe these things.
If not then we need to clarify stances.
I do not have too big of issue with the way he has stated some things, but then again the cults of today started out with small changes in scripture and theology.
My issue is the next step or two over after this.
The founders of the modern cults did not think it was that big a deal (I mean Charles Russell simply did not believe in a god that would use fire for all eternity to punish or reward sinners of their deeds).
And now we have the Jehovah Witnesses. (Kinda like not believing God would create people if He knew in advance that they were going to sin and reject Him thus going to the lake of fire).
Song of Solomon 2:15
Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.
Tony Conger
Of you’re going to that extreme that ANYTHING that is not correct constitutes a cult or somehow affects a person’s salvation then who can get into heaven? Do you have all the answers? Have you ever taught something that you now reject? And Charles Russell taught a lot more than that, but even the idea of annihilation in the lake of fire doesn’t doom someone to damnation in my opinion
Tony Conger
Just remember Jesus said what so ever measure you use to judge someone else the same will be used to judge you. If you exclude others from heaven because of any misunderstanding of scripture then you better hope and pray you never say anything wrong or you may not make it past the gates
David Lewayne Porter
Tony, reread my post.
Stop being so personal in an open discussion.
I said the modern day cults STARTED with small changes to the Scriptures and theology, that was a quote by the way, verbatim.
Maybe you missed that.
Since you want me personally.
I don’t have all the answers.
I never professed to. I dont teach and preach opinion. Opinions distract us from the true goal of soul winning. If it is not straight Scripture I keep it to myself in a church or fellowship meeting.
As far as anything not correct effecting someone’s salvation,
Jesus Himself said, “John 7:37-38
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water”.
“AS THE SCRIPTURE HATH SAID”.
I guess Jesus covered it for us.
Have I ever taught something that I now reject.
No, not a one.
You see I had a wise mentor that told me, “you can destroy a 40 year ministry with one careless statement that you can’t back up. Be sure to be able to stand behind and backup anything you say, especially in a ministry setting”.
We need more wise mentors to that sort.
Charles Russell – yeah he taught more than that, but that is exactly where his error started and why he set out to change The Word to suit his beliefs.
If you don’t believe the idea of annihilation in the lake of fire matters,
Please
Allow
Me…. (as if I where having this conversation with you as a JW)…
If your body can’t burn forever what makes think that god can give you a body that can live forever.
If hell is the grave and then simply no torment then you make Jesus’ Word concerning Lazarus and the rich man void since the rich man lifted up his eyes from hell “the grave” being in torments. If it were a simple parable it is the only parable Jesus named a particular person in. (So is it a sin and an soul eternal destination issue to question the correctness of the very one you are depending on for your eternal salvation)?
But wait they believe that His blood does not save you, you only received the opportunity to work your way to the new earth (since only 144,000 go to the new heaven – and are already there) you can work your way there since Jesus’ blood does not actually bring atonement and forgiveness at repentance. Let’s not forget that Jesus and satan are brothers since Jesus is the begotten Son of God and satan is also a son according to the book of Job. Let’s not forget that the cross does not exist, it was simply a torture stake, a common tree on the side of the road that they simply affixed his cross bar to.
Now to get back to our point,
It ALL BEGAN with god will not let people suffer in fire for all eternity.
As far as measuring myself (I do everyday – but thank you for your concern).
You see I know I have to have my theology correct before I can help others because only those that have ty hems elves ready can help others (Matt 7:1-5 I must have my beam removed before I get the mote out if my brothers eye (but verse 5, I will remove his mote).
Please add verse 6 give not that which is Holy unto dogs, nor cast your pearl before swine,,, they will trample them under foot and turn again to rend you….. yeah, you are exactly right. I have it covered.
As far as my beliefs and not making it through the gate,,,,,
Matthew 5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
But my favorite
1 Corinthians 3:9-15
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Thanks my brother
Tony Conger
1. The idea of annihilation doesn’t happen in he’ll, it happens in the lake of fire.
2. If you didn’t mean the cult reference to apply to the conversation why did you quote it.
David Lewayne Porter
Because it does apply.
If we push the scriptures to say what we believe and not what is actually there.
On that basis we are few very small steps from the same mistakes that the cults made.
I am not saying that we are there, or even headed there but without due caution we can be very shortly.
David Lewayne Porter
I did not say annihilation happens in hell.
But there are torments in hell, it is not simply the grave as they say it is.
They don’t believe in any form or time of spiritual suffering before the lake of fire which will happen suddenly.
Death is it until then.
Tony Conger
I was pointing out that Lazarus wasn’t in Lake of fire. And my overall point was that belief in the lake of fire ending existence vs eternal torment isn’t a salvation issue in my opinion
David Lewayne Porter
In itself, maybe not.
But it opens the door to other error,
And well,
Where do we draw the line on error?
How much?
Willful or ignorantly?
And if they are willingly ignorant, then what?
David Lewayne Porter
I just choose to be a little on the reserved side and stick with the things that can be supported
More than to press the edge of the envelope.
I know too many that have left the church and are agnostic because they feel that the church and Christians did not tell them the truth on beliefs, theology, the Bible as well as other points.
Charles Page
I have read this in post and comments from some “Hebrew Christians” implying that Jesus was a son of God (whatever they called him) and his father was a distant God who had many sons.
Ricky Grimsley
We all look to each other as if we interject our personal views. Most of us quote scriptures but how many times do we see people say “well the words there have some different meaning because we know that cant apply to god”. For example all scriptures about God having body parts. Some say anthropomorphisms i say God has a body (jesus). Its not like any of us are a part of the original church. We could all prove by the scriptures that women should be silent in the church but how many of us practice that. We all believe that God doesnt change in his nature but some believe that God doesnt change in anyway meaning he doesnt have thoughts, or emotions, or change his mind. These things come from creeds and ancient dissertations from the past but when you look at what the bible says God has changed his mind. He does have emotions. He did incarnate himself so he could be touched with the feelings of our infirmities. He has actual memories of pain and betrayal.
David Lewayne Porter
I can agree with about 85% of that, but not all.
Where some see God changing His mind, I personally see God putting us in a position to understand the gravity of our next step so He does not have to lower the hammer on us. I believe He simply lets us know He could and will if we don’t change.
As a parent says, “if you don’t straighten up I am going to tear you up”.
How many followed through and tore them up?
Ricky Grimsley
And that is the way i was raised and completely understand that. However, where i feel the analogy breaks down is, in most people’s mind, you are dealing with A God that knows whether or not you will straighten up or not from his very first thought of creation. So what point is the punishment. Certainly not to change the future because it doesnt change from God’s view.
David Lewayne Porter
Well, I guess that about covers it.