Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 12, 1999 at 10:56:12 {CkRQXOxAaIMSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:
In Reply to: ********TRUE GOD OR FALSE GOD posted by honhea on November 12, 1999 at 04:14:45:
You missed the point.
I already said that both Jehovah and Jesus are both "Lord" and "God" to the obedient.
So it would be the same if I said I was going to go to Palestine to see "My Lord and my God" with my own two eyes in the flesh. This is during the millennium so the God and Lord, Jesus, is in the flesh right now so he can have hands-on with the work being done during his rule as king.
But since I said I would see him with my own eyes, you wouldn't confuse him with Jehovah, who is not appearing in the flesh.
The fact is, it is not inappropriate to call Jesus "God" and he is called "god" in various scriptures.
And it is also a fact that angels are called "gods" as well.
So it is clear that what their word for "god" was, had broad and multiple concepts which might not be sufficiently explored in simple English. We must not fall into the trap of getting hung up on the English words were use for ancient terms.
But, with Job saying that he would see God with his own eyes, it suggests that God would be visible to him. That would tend to contradict the idea that "no many has seen God [directly] at any time." However, since Jesus must also be considered as "god" and he does appear in the flesh, particularly during the millennium which this is a reference to, we have no choice but to consider that Job may be talking about Jesus instead of contradicting scripture.
And remember, the Jews thought the angels were "gods" so no problem with God, Jesus, being an angel and a god at the same time.
So you're perfectly free to interpret this in your own way, but there is nothing scripturally wrong with calling Jesus "God". In fact, the Bible calls him "Mighty God" doesn't it? And in another place "Michael", the archangel.
Cheers,
Bibleman