docbible.net

The Bible and the Book of Mormon

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Scripture MISCELLANEOUS Monotheism, Mormonism and the New Testament witness

Monotheism, Mormonism and the New Testament witness

E-mail Print PDF

By Paul Owen

The Old Testament background of New Testament Monotheism. Page 272

"I contend that the religion of the Old Testament was explicitly monotheistic and that this monotheistic outlook was inherit by Jesus and the apostles. In order to support this claim, it is necessary to define what I mean by "monotheistic" and to distinguish monotheism from the terms polytheism and henotheism/monolatry. My definition of Jewish monotheism is as follows: Jewish monotheism is the ancient belief that the finite order exists because of the creating and sustaining will of one unique and supremely powerful personal Being, who has revealed himself to the nation of Israel and demands universal worship and devotion. Polytheism I take to be the belief in and worship of a plurality of Gods, even if these gods are believed to be emanations of a supreme High God. Henotheism/monolatry I take to be the acknowledgement that many ontologically comparable gods exist, although a decision has been made to worship only one God. The religion of the Old Testament is neither polytheistic nor henotheistic but is monotheistic. According to the definition set forth above, this involves at least three claims (1) God is unique in his being; (2) God is the Creator of all things; (3) and God is sovereign all that he has created"

Behold Your God Unique in His Being page 273

"First of all, God is unique in his being. This means that although God is not the only heavenly being, due to his unique identity he is the only being to whom worship is appropriately offered. Larry Hurtado notes that in ancient Jewish religion, "there is a concern to assert God's uniqueness, which is characteristically expressed by contrasting God with the other deities familiar to ancient Jews in the larger religious environment......It is important to note that this concern for God's uniqueness also comes to expression in a contrast between God and his loyal heavenly retinue, the angels. For example, angels can be distinguished as created beings from God who is uncreated."

Well now we have the basic to work on. Clearly the Protestants in this case Mr. Owen, need to show us many different things because the Old Testament makes many different statement about God and angels seen by many important people and in many cases these important people as Jacob declared to have seen God Himself and later other writers regarding the same episode talk about angels, not only this could create confusion but could the same God being defined as an angel?

Mr. Owen took many different position to explain this but left this particular one out, maybe he didn't think that there was the possibility that both the writers were writing the truth or maybe he didn't like the idea.

We know that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and we know that He is the only mediator between God and mankind. We know for sure that the Jews understood that He maintained to be their God or at least to be Himself a God, in fact the priest rented his clothes and said: "Our God is one!" implying that Jesus maintain to be God Himself or just another God.

Jesus taught that His Father was greater than him and also when he was talking about perfection was referring to His Father instead to himself. I like what Mr. Owen wrote and I am not sarcastic here at all, he made a clear idea of what he believes and even though I do not agree with his "opinions" I need to say that I can understand why he believes in that way, because He forever was taught in that way and so every step in his life were devoted to defend this idea and never took in consideration other ways, instead he prefer to find a way to destroy or find faults in other ways to make sure that his "opinions" or beliefs are safer. This is a classical way in which most of us if not all of us tend to think about religion.

To have a better understanding of what I am trying to show here I suggest you to read the Great Jehovah and I will add here just few thoughts to make my point.

Mr. Owen declared:" (1) God is unique in his being; (2) God is the Creator of all things; (3) and God is sovereign all that he has created"

I agree on all of them.

Chapter 1
John 1:1
1 ¶ IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:4
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

We have two Gods here and the word "with" doesn't' mean "in" has a different idea in it, but I do not want to argue the trinity here just to show something that even Mr. Owen agrees and that is that Jesus is the creator of everything , here declared from John

John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So the creator of all things announced in the point Number two is Jesus. Th problem arises when we start to analyze  what Larry Hurtado declared and this was used by Mr.Owen saying "Larry Hurtado notes that in ancient Jewish religion,.....angels can be distinguished as created beings from God who is uncreated." So angels are created and God is uncreated if we could prove that Jesus was created, according to the point made from Mr.Owen by the words of Mr. Hurtado, Jesus would be disqualified as God (just according to their words no on my opinion).

Revelation 3:14
14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Well Jesus Himself destroys their point and it is a clear ace on this topic.

Mr. Owen Uses several scriptures to make his point and I really appreciated this because the other writers were just using their opinions or speculation. Mr. Owen uses Deuteonomy 6:4-5 ad after that he is honest in saying : " Collins presumably takes the book of Deuteronomy to reflect the views of the monotheistic "reformation" alluded in 2 Kings 22-23. Some Biblical scholars have held that the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges 1-2 Samuel, and 1 - 2 Kings are the work of an editor (or editors) working in the time of the exile. Hence, the strong monotheism of the book of Deuteronomy could be explained as a novelty that was not dominant in Israelite religion before the time of the Babylonian exile. However, I am not persuaded by this hypothesis. It is, of course possible that the book of Deuteronomy underwent editing by later scribes, but there are good reasons for maintaining that the substance of Deuteronomy goes back to the time of Moses himself."

Sincerely believing in a such thing is like to believe that the Bible is true as far is translated or interpreted correctly, so even in this case the Protestants don't believe in the Bible per se.

Mr. Owen points out later :"as C. J Labuschagne point out, the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) in Deuteronomy 6:4 refers to "somebody who has no family, and, applied to Yahweh, this means that He doesn't belong to any family of gods. This aspect distinguish him from all other gods."

Well the strange thing here is that Jesus always called God His Father and he was the Son of God, Father and son clearly are part of a family or not? So my question is if Yahweh has no family how  can he be named son or Father?

After this at page 275 Mr. Owen quotes some other scriptures to point out the same idea that beside Yahweh there is no other God and he quotes Deuteronomy 4:35  4:39   32:39 and in a very subtle way Mr. Owen points out " Such statements need not deny the existence of other heavenly beings (or gods), but such beings are not the same exclusive category as the one true God"

I'd like to ask Mr. Owen why the Bible says GODS and we are supposed to understand angels or other things when the Bible doesn't say that? Anyway there is another ace here ready to go on the table and end the discussion.

Isaiah 48:12
12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I [am] he; I [am] the first, I also [am] the last.

Isaiah 48:13
13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.

Isaiah 48:14
14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these [things]? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm [shall be on] the Chaldeans.

Isaiah 48:15
15 I, [even] I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

Isaiah 48:16
16 ¶ Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

The New Testament identifies Jesus as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, while the Old Testament identifies Jehovah as being the first and the last. The New Testament declares that it was Jesus who created the earth, while the Old Testament says that Jehovah created the earth. Are there two Gods with the same name who created the earth or is Jesus and Jehovah the same being? Since we believe there is only one God, then we are forced to conclude that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the same as Jehovah of the Old Testament.

But notice what Jehovah said: "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." In other words, Jehovah was sent from another God and His Spirit. That makes three different persons in the Godhead who have three different callings. Although Jehovah was known to the Israelites from their beginning, yet they didn't understand His relationship with Elohim. Unfortunately, most Christians today don't understand this relationship..

Fortunately Jesus explained this relationship in John 17:26: "And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

 

Paul supports this concept in Ephesians 3:14-15 "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named."

Here we have another great key, Paul is saying that the Father gave the name of the whole family in heaven and hearth. The Word Elohim is plural, and comes from a singular feminine word Alah or Eloh. When we add "IM" to a Hebrew singular word, it becomes plural. However, "IM" is usually the ending of the plural masculine, but here it is added to a feminine name. Therefore, the word "Elohim" conveys the sense of a feminine and masculine power being united. In marriage we also see feminine and masculine power united and becoming one (Genesis 2:24). And it is the power of a man and a woman in marriage that is needed to create a family. Could it be the word Elohim also means "FAMILY?"

Mormons believe that all of mankind belongs to a celestial family. Paul also tells us there is a family in heaven (Ephesians 3:15). Was he also a Mormon? But he didn't need to be, because it is so easy to understand. If there is a Son of God, who is Jesus, and that He had a Father in heaven, does that not indicate that there is a FAMILY in heaven?

Regarding angels it is interesting to note that Michael the archangel who defeated Lucifer has a very important name Michael in fact means "who is like God".

It is very hard for Mr. Owen to prove what the Hebrew believed in the Old Testament because when Jesus came they were clearly in apostasy and before of that they never were obedient and faithful. regarding this let me quote this.

 

If we look at the history of the Israelite nation as detailed in the Bible we can easily see that the Lord's chosen people had many more generations of unfaithfulness than fidelity to the Lord.

Starting with their first king, Saul, we find that he became puffed up in pride and finally did many things contrary to the ways of God. David is considered by the Jews to be one of their best kings, and for the most part he remained faithful to God's ways (with the exception of the wife of Uria, the Hittite.) Solomon, began his kingship as a faithful follower of God, but toward the end of his life he turned his heart to idols.

After Solomon's death, the nation was divided in two kingdoms, Israel and Judah. Jeroboam ruled over the kingdom of Israel. In 1 King 12:26-29 we read, "And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan."

This isn't just a case of having an unrighteous king. This is also a situation where the king led his people to worship false idols, thereby polluting not only himself but all the citizens of his kingdom as well. We can assume that the reading of the law was no forbidden. Then what did king Jeroboam do with all the sacred books? The common practice in those days would have been to destroy them.

Rehoboam ruled over the kingdom of Judah In 1 Kings 14:21-26 we read, "And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made."

In the fifth year of Rehoboam, Solomon's the temple was looted by the king of Egypt. What happened to all the sacred records? Perhaps the priests who were in charge of taking care of the books somehow kept them from being destroyed, but that is only a wishful guess. In fact, verse 26 seems to indicate that such may not have been the case.

The next king of Judah was Abijam. According to 1 king 15:3 it tells us, "And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father."

Clearly he was not a righteous king. Fortunately Asa, who was the next king, did strive to follow the ways of the Lord, but by this time idolatry was rampant throughout the kingdom. In fact, in 1 king 15:13 we read, "And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron."

As good as this may sound about Asa's efforts to eradicate idolatry throughout the land, we we read in the next verse, "But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days." In the meantime, Nadab, who was the king of Israel, was not a righteous king and King Baasa who succeeded him to the throne was just as bad.

As we go through each succeeding king in both kingdoms, we come to see how few of them followed the ways of the Lord. If that's the case, who was caring for the sacred books which contained the words of God? My personal opinion is that the true believers lived in the wilderness rather than in the cities. There they tried to maintain the sacred books as best they could. There are many archeological finds which seem to suggest this idea and they indicate that these wilderness believers taught something very different from what the Christian world teaches today.

There is an amazing story in the Bible which supports this idea. It's found in 2 King 22:1,8,11,13: "Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem And his mother's name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath... And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes... Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

This clearly shows that the Jews not only could have but did lose one of their sacred books of the law. What makes this story even more amazing is that this lost book was discovered in their own Temple! How negligent must they have been to misplace and not even notice the loss of a sacred book? If that is true of one book, what about other writings of the prophets, especially when we consider that they were usually killed by the people for what they taught?

Originally, the law that was written upon the tables of stone by the finger of God was placed in the ark along with the rod of Aaron. To the Israelites, these items were the most sacred items of all. These were physical evidences of God's presence in creating their nation, but even these have been lost. Is it so incredible to believe that they were unfaithful and disobedient?

By the way regarding the monotheism problem there is another scripture to prove my point that the Hebrew (or David) knew at least two Gods.

Psalms 2:7
7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:5
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Psalms 45:6
6 ¶ Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom [is] a right sceptre.

Psalms 45:7
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Paul was an Israelis and knew the Old Testament and he refers these passages to the Hebrew pointing out the relationship between Father and son and clearly part of a family. If Jesus was Jehovah, then Jehovah had a Father.

But remember that Isaiah 48:12-16 is the ace to end the discussion because Jehovah clearly states that he was sent from somebody else.

Hebrews 1:8
8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 1:9
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Anyway I need to commend Mr. Owen because he was honest in his presentation he discussed three different objections and even tough he was trying these objections wrong he was very honest and fair in his presentation. I do no need to discuss these objection because I made already my point but I will give the references.

Objection 1 "Ancient Judaism was not interested in philosophical questions about God's uniqueness.

Objection 2  The angel of the LORD passages in the Old Testament prove that ancient Judaism was not rigidly monotheistic.

Objection 3 "The Divine council motif in the Old Testament shows ancient Judaism was not monotheistic in an exclusive sense.

Another interesting consideration on this topic is the fact that Jesus was killed just because maintained to be the son of God

Matthew 26:63
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 26:64
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26:65
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Mark 14:61
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

Mark 14:62
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 14:63
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

Mark 14:64
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Luke 22:67
67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

Luke 22:68
68 And if I also ask [you], ye will not answer me, nor let [me] go.

Luke 22:69
69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Luke 22:70
70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Luke 22:71
71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Ironically we could say that Jesus was killed because he was teaching plurality of Gods in fact the monotheists Jews felt in his words blasphemy maybe the Jews were PROTESTANTS.

The Trinitarian content of New Testament Monotheism page 285

Mr. Owen goes ahead: "There is no question but that Christianity arose out of the matrix of Jewish monotheism. And yet, from a very early period, Christians were worshipping Jesus alongside God in their congregations without apparently sensing any theological or practical contradiction."...... "We have already ATTEMPTED to demonstrate that the Jewish theological heritage of early Christianity was firmly committed to monotheism. What we will now sketch in this section are the ways in which monotheism was expanded to include Jesus and the Holy Ghost within God' sunique identity in the religious faith of the earliest Christian church."

What Mr. Owen should explain it is the fact that in that way Monotheism became polytheism, because even though Mr. Owen is saying that they are the same person they still are three different persons with three different titles or names, best of all the Muslim and Jewish maintain themselves as the only Monotheistic faith, Christians are clearly polytheistic even they don't like to be classified like that. The point was well explained from these scriptures in which Jesus was attacked by the Jews on this topic.

John 10:31
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

John 10:32
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

John 10:33
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

John 10:35
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

and He used for the first and only time the expression : "the scripture cannot be broken; " to make sure that no one even the Protestant could change His meaning.


Matthew 26:63
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 26:64
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26:65
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

So clearly the Jews didn't accept His words as monotheistic but as polytheistic.

To make his point Mr.Owen quotes John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" hence, including himself alongside the Father in the Jewish affirmation of one Lord and God."

well Mr.>Owen in this case omits to go ahead and quote verse John 17:11

John 17:11
11 ¶ And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

So Jesus was talking about unity in the purpose otherwise Mr.Owen should accept the idea that mankind could be included in the same "ONE" so Mr. Owen should give up in at least one direction and tell us know what Jesus meant really in fact

John 17:20
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

John 17:21
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 17:22
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

John 17:23
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

John 17:24
24 ¶ Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

so Mr. Owen which idea do you prefer here? If you are honest you should admit that Jesus was just talking about unity in the purpose and commitment, otherwise you should admit that people like me and you can be part of the great "ONE" that Jesus mentioned in his prayer.

Did Jesus claim to be "a god" or "God" pag.309

Peterson claims that Jesus was only accused of making himself "a god" since the Greek word theos in John 10:33 lacks the definite article. Although this translation is grammatically possible, it is weakened by the fact that this is a response to Jesus' claim: "I and the Father are one" (10:30). Why would the Jews conclude that by claming to be "one" with the Father he was actually claiming to be a second God? On the other hand, Jesus' claim is naturally understood in terms of inclusion within the unique identity of the One God. Peterson is correct to insist that Jesus is not the Father, but he misses the fact that Jesus identifies the One God of the Shema as both the Father and the son."

Clearly Mr. Owen is missing to tell us what Jesus meant here:"John 17:22
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

John 17:23
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one

If he is correct in his explanation it is clear that we have to use the same concept here and therefore WE will be ONE in the Father too, so filling a hole Mr. Owen is opening an other one bigger.

Were El and Yahweh distinct Gods in ancient Judaism? page 312

"In his discussion, Peterson assumes the conclusion of those who argue that El and Yahweh were originally two distinct Gods: "In the earliest Israelite conception, according to this view, father El had a divine son named Yahweh. El, or Elyon (the Highest or the Most High), and Yahweh were distinct. Of course, the biblical text OFTEN appears to identify El as Yahweh, but this is explained as a late religious development: "By the tenth century B.C., however, El and Yahweh had come to be identified with one another......thus, after roughly the tenth century before  Christ, no evidence of any distinct Israelite cult of El is extant, except in his guise as Yahweh." Mr. Owen remarks:" I must confess that I find difficult to understand why Peterson would want to accept the destructive conclusions of historical critical scholarship, particularly when the evidence does not at all demand it."

well also in this case we nee to remind to Mr. Owen

Isaiah 48:12
12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I [am] he; I [am] the first, I also [am] the last.

Isaiah 48:13
13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.

Isaiah 48:14
14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these [things]? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm [shall be on] the Chaldeans.

Isaiah 48:15
15 I, [even] I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

Isaiah 48:16
16 ¶ Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

Yahweh is sent from some other God higher then him sure the Most High God, It is interesting to note that if God was just ONE as Mr. Owen maintains there was no need to define God the Most High because clearly if He is the only one he would be clearly the Most High...........

Conclusion page 314

"In conclusion, the religion of the Bible is monotheistic from start to finish." Mr. Owen forget to mention that the first word to name God in the Bible is Elohim and not Yahweh and Elohim in Hebrew means "Gods" so Maybe it would have been appropriate for him to day that in his personal opinion the Bible is monotheistic, in fact what we have provided so far is completely different from his views.

The New Mormon challenge

Moral law

Concept of God

Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 December 2010 13:41  

site info

Members : 12886
Content : 381
Web Links : 6
Content View Hits : 740208

Who is online

We have 31 guests online

Adam's progenitors

Massimo Franceschini Adam's progenitors?

Secret paradise

Massimo Franceschini Secret Paradise

Hidden truths in the Bible. Volume 1

Hidden truths in the Bible. Volume 1