"Begotten", what does it mean?

[sojourner]

Well explain the following.
Deut 6:4 Hear Israel, YHWH our Eloim (Gods) are one YHWH.
And right in the beginning where YHWH created the Earth and His Spirit hovered above the waters.
Obviously the many verses in the QT where YHWH speaks to YHWH.

No, even Jews such as Herch Prinz understood and accepted the Trinity when he was given a New Testament.
He even destroyed the "Pluralis Majestica" theory, and made sure that the Jews in Berlin learned about Jesus.
10s of thousands of Jews accepted Jesus as their saviour and God.
4 May 1877 Death of Pauli, Trinitarian Kabbalist #otdimjh

The explanation is that, in a certain tradition we call “Elohist,” Hebraic belief was henotheistic, rather than monotheistic. Added to that is the fact that many Biblical texts made their way to the Hebrews from earlier, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Sumerian traditions. However, by the time these stories were compiled and written down, the Hebrews were monotheistic, and would not have conceived of God as anything but singular.

We’re not talking about modern theologians outside ancient Palestine.

 

[epronovost]

and what about David?

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

It's what we call adoption and it falls under the purview of the second definition of beget which means "gives rise to/bring about". Here God says that he "brought about" the success, power and fame of David by having him "adopted"/under his wing.

 

[MyM]

It gets tricky when we read such things as "In the beginning" -because it does not always have to refer to the same point -much less the very beginning point.
It can just mean prior to whatever is being discussed afterward.

It is also possible that there is NOT a beginning to existence, but there IS a beginning to development.

If not a self-replication of either a developing or always-complex God at some point, then they would have always developed/existed in tandem -but that raises the question of why the Father is in authority. Being the original self/self-awareness would make that the default state.

Christ was definitely begotten by his experience on Earth -so he was technically born as man and born again -as one who had qualified for/was prepared for his future by experience, suffering as we generally do, etc. -and being made a spirit again..... regardless of his exact origin.

That is your opinion, but the fact is, IT DOES MATTER.

To humiliate God into siring physically a human being is down right humiliation to the Creator of all things. He tells us in the Quran he doesn't beget nor is he begotten. But in Christianity, they put God on their level as man and that is something unforgivable. He created mankind to worship him, not to put him in man form and worship the man and pray to the man.

 

[MyM]

It's what we call adoption and it falls under the purview of the second definition of beget which means "gives rise to/bring about". Here God says that he "brought about" the success, power and fame of David by having him "adopted"/under his wing.

The word adopted is used in that sentence!???? The word begotten, means to be sired, to bring into reproduction state. It doesn't mean adopted....It's amazing that every place in the bible that there is a contradiction, some see it as how they wish and that is where you get so many different opinions and they all attribute their own opinions as being the words of God. It doesn't work like that.

In Islam, Allah says he perfected his religion and completed it. To bring in our own opinion on it is completely forbidden.

 

[epronovost]

The word adopted is used in that sentence!???? The word begotten, means to be sired, to bring into reproduction state. It doesn't mean adopted....It's amazing that every place in the bible that there is a contradiction, some see it as how they wish and that is where you get so many different opinions and they all attribute their own opinions as being the words of God. It doesn't work like that.

I'd like you to note that the word begotten here doesn't refer to reproduction but to bring about something, here, it's bring about the success of David. Begat has more than one definition and usage. What makes David adopted is God referring to him as his son in the same passage. David was indeed favored by God and adopted as is de facto champion, king and prophet. Here's a rule of thumb. If a word is used in a sentence and its most common definition doesn't seem to make sense, that same word might have another usage. Also, I'd like to remind that no religious scripture was ever written by any deities. They are all written by men; they were not even written by the prophets and other priests who claimed to be direct contact with the deity in question, but by priests and copyists often decades after the fact (in the case of the Quran or the NT) if not centuries in the cases of the OT.

In Islam, Allah says he perfected his religion and completed it. To bring in our own opinion on it is completely forbidden.

Which is why in Islam there is no scholarship or different opinion on the meaning, interpretation and application of any verses of the Quran. That simply doesn't happen. That's why there is no theology nor any form of sectarianism within this religion... wait, I just told a big fat lie... there is all of this within Islam.

Don't point fingers at the stupidity of another person's religion; your religion is almost certainly just as stupid and you expose yourself to basically the same critique.

 

[MyM]

I'd like you to note that the word begotten here doesn't refer to reproduction but to bring about something, here, it's bring about the success of David. Begat has more than one definition and usage. What makes David adopted is God referring to him as his son in the same passage. David was indeed favored by God and adopted as is de facto champion, king and prophet. Here's a rule of thumb. If a word is used in a sentence and its most common definition doesn't seem to make sense, that same word might have another usage. Also, I'd like to remind that no religious scripture was ever written by any deities. They are all written by men; they were not even written by the prophets and other priests who claimed to be direct contact with the deity in question, but by priests and copyists often decades after the fact (in the case of the Quran or the NT) if not centuries in the cases of the OT.



Which is why in Islam there is no scholarship or different opinion on the meaning, interpretation and application of any verses of the Quran. That simply doesn't happen. That's why there is no theology nor any form of sectarianism within this religion... wait, I just told a big fat lie... there is all of this within Islam.

Don't point fingers at the stupidity of another person's religion; your religion is almost certainly just as stupid and you expose yourself to basically the same critique.

Then you are saying what? God lies? Why use "begotten" at all? The terms you use in the Bible, are written by the hands of men. They cannot be 100% trusted. It's like they say one thing here, usin the same word, then another place here in a different way but the word only means ONE THING. It's ridiculous.

I know what they verses in Psalms 2:7 it's actually quite expressive, but the fact remains, he said BEGOTTEN, and you cannot deny what that means. I would advise you to go back to the Christian Theologians and have them correct or actually have them throw out the word begotten altogether for that is a humiliation to God. We don't bring down God to man's level. But who knows, since they constantly take and remove and make many different bibles, maybe one day it will be removed...actually really doesn't matter, they already do that anyway and say they are inspired....games.

 

[MyM]

I'd like you to note that the word begotten here doesn't refer to reproduction but to bring about something, here, it's bring about the success of David. Begat has more than one definition and usage. What makes David adopted is God referring to him as his son in the same passage. David was indeed favored by God and adopted as is de facto champion, king and prophet. Here's a rule of thumb. If a word is used in a sentence and its most common definition doesn't seem to make sense, that same word might have another usage. Also, I'd like to remind that no religious scripture was ever written by any deities. They are all written by men; they were not even written by the prophets and other priests who claimed to be direct contact with the deity in question, but by priests and copyists often decades after the fact (in the case of the Quran or the NT) if not centuries in the cases of the OT.



Which is why in Islam there is no scholarship or different opinion on the meaning, interpretation and application of any verses of the Quran. That simply doesn't happen. That's why there is no theology nor any form of sectarianism within this religion... wait, I just told a big fat lie... there is all of this within Islam.

Don't point fingers at the stupidity of another person's religion; your religion is almost certainly just as stupid and you expose yourself to basically the same critique.

If I made it to be stupid, it's not your fault. It should be aimed at the ones who change the Bible. I never said stupid by the way, that was you.
As for Islam, everything goes back to the Quran. That hasn't been changed. It's still in the Arabic over 1400 years now The Bible you will never have that and you know why? Jesus did not tell anyone to write anything down. Christians are following a belief of writers and unknown authors, Paul's version, and there is no Gospel according to Jesus. It's actually pretty decent they found those but even then, they add and delete from those scrolls as they see to it that it fits. I mean even the Catholics have 7 more books that the protestant doesn't acknowledge...why not? Why aren't they Christians like many? It's just a big game it seems and people believe what they are told.

 

[epronovost]

As for Islam, everything goes back to the Quran. That hasn't been changed. It's still in the Arabic over 1400 years now

Indeed, but the authors of the Quran are also rather numerous and it's difficult to assess their precise name and numbers in some cases. The book itself was written about 20 years after Muhammad's death. While the Quran is far more standardized, it would be important to note that there are still a few different versions of it even in Arabic (and of course there are many competing translations in other languages). The idea that the Quran is one unchanged, identical book with no regional or translation difference is a myth.

 

[MyM]

Indeed, but the authors of the Quran are also rather numerous and it's difficult to assess their precise name and numbers in some cases. The book itself was written about 20 years after Muhammad's death. While the Quran is far more standardized, it would be important to note that there are still a few different versions of it even in Arabic (and of course there are many competing translations in other languages). The idea that the Quran is one unchanged, identical book with no regional or translation difference is a myth.

This is where you are mistaken. The Quran was written during the Time of Mohammad pbuh as he told them to write it down. It was later gathered and put into book form. The Arabic has always been the same. Don't know where you are getting your information. If you are talkin translations, many people can translate but Mohammad pbuh only instructed a few to be the interpreters of it...and they are authenticated. But you have enemies of Islam to tarnish and make their own opinionated translations and then you get to believe they are correct. The ARABIC has been unchanged and Allah challenges anyone to come up with another book like it and in over 1400 years man has not. Still the same and will never change. Allah is protecting it.

 

[Soapy]

lol I don't believe Jesus as the legitimate son of God Allah is the only one worthy of worship. Jesus was sent as a messenger to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I’m not sure what your answer means. But you are still trying to link the term ‘Son’ with a human physical relationship to a Father.

‘Father’ in the scriptures, and Spiritually, means:

• ‘He who creates’
• ‘He who brings forth’
• ‘He who gives life’
• ‘He who is the head/leader’

‘Son’, means:

• ‘He who does the works of the Father’
• ‘He who follows the spirit of the Father’

It is only in a human, physical sense that ‘procreation’, ‘legitimate’, ‘impregnate’, ‘sex’’,… comes into play.

God did not ‘Have sex’ with Mary to ‘impregnate’ her. You sad it yourself, ‘God merely has to say (by his word!) ‘do’ and it is done! God merely spoke that Mary would conceive a child who would, because God is holy, the child would also be holy. Holy, which means, sinless and righteous.

Man cannot say, ‘be pregnant’ and it becomes so. He has to perform a physical act of impregnate on to achieve the same. But man is sinful therefore his offspring is also sinful.

The resultant Son this born from God through the woman is still HUMAN… a physical person. He has to prove himself as being worthy of being called ‘a Son of his Father’ : God. Therefore he is TESTED!! And if he passes the test then he is ADOPTED is a SPIRITUAL SENSE as a SON OF GOD.

The resultant Son from a physical union between humans is a procreated son. Since he is already sinful it is touch and go whether he ‘follows the spirit of his Father’. Check the many example ‘Sons of the Patriarchs’… they all, the firstborn, sinned BADLY:

• Cain (superceded by Seth)
• Esau (superceded by Isaac)
• Ishmael (superceded by Jacob)
• Rueben (superceded by Joseph)
• Eliab (superceded by David)
• Adonijah (superceded by Solomon)

The first born Son of each of the patriarchs were initially the most beloved of their Father because they were the first to ‘open the womb’ of the mother. But they sinned … and another son (in brackets) was ‘taken up’ (adopted……..) as the ‘firstborn Son’ (that is: The most beloved son).
(Please note the difference between ‘First Born’ (chronologically) and ‘Firstborn’ (Most loved).

Jesus was not the ‘First Born’ of the ‘Son of God’. This was ADAM (Luke 3:38). And, like shown above, he SINNED. And, like above, another was put in his place as firstborn..: Jesus Christ.

 

[Soapy]

The word adopted is used in that sentence!???? The word begotten, means to be sired, to bring into reproduction state. It doesn't mean adopted....It's amazing that every place in the bible that there is a contradiction, some see it as how they wish and that is where you get so many different opinions and they all attribute their own opinions as being the words of God. It doesn't work like that.

In Islam, Allah says he perfected his religion and completed it. To bring in our own opinion on it is completely forbidden.

You are wrong. ‘Begotten’ most certainly does lend itself to mean ‘Adopted’.

Please see Philemon 1:10 in the Bible.

Paul ‘begat’ the slave Onesimus as his Son!
Paul ‘begat’ Onesimus as his Son!
Paul ‘took up’ Onesimus as his own Son!

Likewise, 1 John 5:1 says:

• “Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone loving the One having begotten Him also loves the onehaving been begotten from Him.”

 

[MyM]

I’m not sure what your answer means. But you are still trying to link the term ‘Son’ with a human physical relationship to a Father.

‘Father’ in the scriptures, and Spiritually, means:

• ‘He who creates’
• ‘He who brings forth’
• ‘He who gives life’
• ‘He who is the head/leader’

‘Son’, means:

• ‘He who does the works of the Father’
• ‘He who follows the spirit of the Father’

It is only in a human, physical sense that ‘procreation’, ‘legitimate’, ‘impregnate’, ‘sex’’,… comes into play.

God did not ‘Have sex’ with Mary to ‘impregnate’ her. You sad it yourself, ‘God merely has to say (by his word!) ‘do’ and it is done! God merely spoke that Mary would conceive a child who would, because God is holy, the child would also be holy. Holy, which means, sinless and righteous.

Man cannot say, ‘be pregnant’ and it becomes so. He has to perform a physical act of impregnate on to achieve the same. But man is sinful therefore his offspring is also sinful.

The resultant Son this born from God through the woman is still HUMAN… a physical person. He has to prove himself as being worthy of being called ‘a Son of his Father’ : God. Therefore he is TESTED!! And if he passes the test then he is ADOPTED is a SPIRITUAL SENSE as a SON OF GOD.

The resultant Son from a physical union between humans is a procreated son. Since he is already sinful it is touch and go whether he ‘follows the spirit of his Father’. Check the many example ‘Sons of the Patriarchs’… they all, the firstborn, sinned BADLY:

• Cain (superceded by Seth)
• Esau (superceded by Isaac)
• Ishmael (superceded by Jacob)
• Rueben (superceded by Joseph)
• Eliab (superceded by David)
• Adonijah (superceded by Solomon)

The first born Son of each of the patriarchs were initially the most beloved of their Father because they were the first to ‘open the womb’ of the mother. But they sinned … and another son (in brackets) was ‘taken up’ (adopted……..) as the ‘firstborn Son’ (that is: The most beloved son).
(Please note the difference between ‘First Born’ (chronologically) and ‘Firstborn’ (Most loved).

Jesus was not the ‘First Born’ of the ‘Son of God’. This was ADAM (Luke 3:38). And, like shown above, he SINNED. And, like above, another was put in his place as firstborn..: Jesus Christ.

I don't believe you are reading your bible. Jesus wasn't his firstborn as well.

"...Israel is MY SON, even my firstborn:" Exodus 4:22
"...for I (God) and a FATHER to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9

No matter how it is explained, the Bible has been misinterpreted to suit their own liking. Sons all over the place in the Bible and they give their own exegesis on the matter just to suit their belief.

 

[Etritonakin]

That is your opinion, but the fact is, IT DOES MATTER.

To humiliate God into siring physically a human being is down right humiliation to the Creator of all things. He tells us in the Quran he doesn't beget nor is he begotten. But in Christianity, they put God on their level as man and that is something unforgivable. He created mankind to worship him, not to put him in man form and worship the man and pray to the man.

That is not what I said at all -you misunderstand.

Also -even Jesus Christ said -in biblical scripture -not to pray to him -but to God the Father.

God did not sire physically... The being known as the Word -who was with God before man was created -willingly allowed God to place him within a human body in order to experience human life firsthand -in order to become a better mediator/high priest between man and God.

To say he was with God and also was God can be confusing. All beings are made of what God is -even ourselves.

 

[MyM]

That is not what I said at all -you misunderstand.

Also -even Jesus Christ said -in biblical scripture -not to pray to him -but to God the Father.

God did not sire physically... The being known as the Word -who was with God before man was created -willingly allowed God to place him within a human body in order to experience human life firsthand -in order to become a better mediator/high priest between man and God.

To say he was with God and also was God can be confusing. All beings are made of what God is -even ourselves.

Then that word begotten is ridiculous to be in the Bible...makes no sense for it to be here.

See, that is the beauty about Islam. We know our Creator is above such things. He says he is not begotten and he doesn't beget. In Islam, it is beneath your Creator to stoop that low...n then being a man god-die. Ridiculous.

The words of Allah should be infallible. They should not confuse people nor should they humiliate God.

 

[Sand Dancer]

A male deity can't birth, so I guess they needed a different term.

 

[Soapy]

I don't believe you are reading your bible. Jesus wasn't his firstborn as well.

"...Israel is MY SON, even my firstborn:" Exodus 4:22
"...for I (God) and a FATHER to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9

No matter how it is explained, the Bible has been misinterpreted to suit their own liking. Sons all over the place in the Bible and they give their own exegesis on the matter just to suit their belief.

Did I not point out the difference between ‘Firstborn’ and ‘First Born’?

Israel is the ‘MOST BELOVED’ of the ‘NATIONS’ of the known world at that time.

The text is not referring to individual HUMAN BEINGS.

As for Ephraim:

• “Ephraim was the younger brother of Manasseh. In Genesis 48:5, Jacob blessed Ephraim as an adopted son”
• “Later, as Jacob’s health was failing, Joseph brought Manasseh and Ephraim to him for a patriarchal blessing. Being the firstborn, Manasseh would normally have received the bigger blessing, but Jacob switched things up on purpose. As Joseph guided his two sons toward Jacob, he made sure Manasseh was on Jacob’s right side and Ephraim, the younger of the two sons, was on Jacob’s left (Genesis 48:13). But, as Jacob extended his hands, he crossed his arms so that his right hand was placed on Ephraim’s head. Joseph began to object, but his father assured him that he knew what he was doing (verses 17–19). In this way, Ephraim was given precedence over his older brother, Manasseh (Genesis 48:14).” (from gotQuestion.org)

Do you still disagree?

What about Saul being FIRST king of Israel… SINS … and another, David, is put in his place!

Still don’t get it?

‘Firstborn’ means ‘Most beloved’. It’s not the same as ‘First Born’, which is chronological birth [in time.]

The first born sins… Still want to argue?

 

[MyM]

Did I not point out the difference between ‘Firstborn’ and ‘First Born’?

Israel is the ‘MOST BELOVED’ of the ‘NATIONS’ of the known world at that time.

The text is not referring to individual HUMAN BEINGS.

As for Ephraim:

• “Ephraim was the younger brother of Manasseh. In Genesis 48:5, Jacob blessed Ephraim as an adopted son”
• “Later, as Jacob’s health was failing, Joseph brought Manasseh and Ephraim to him for a patriarchal blessing. Being the firstborn, Manasseh would normally have received the bigger blessing, but Jacob switched things up on purpose. As Joseph guided his two sons toward Jacob, he made sure Manasseh was on Jacob’s right side and Ephraim, the younger of the two sons, was on Jacob’s left (Genesis 48:13). But, as Jacob extended his hands, he crossed his arms so that his right hand was placed on Ephraim’s head. Joseph began to object, but his father assured him that he knew what he was doing (verses 17–19). In this way, Ephraim was given precedence over his older brother, Manasseh (Genesis 48:14).” (from gotQuestion.org)

Do you still disagree?

What about Saul being FIRST king of Israel… SINS … and another, David, is put in his place!

Still don’t get it?

‘Firstborn’ means ‘Most beloved’. It’s not the same as ‘First Born’, which is chronological birth [in time.]

The first born sins… Still want to argue?

It's you that don't understand and I'm not arguing. The Bible is not in a position to explain the term begotten simply because it should never be there in the first place. To associate something so hideous. You may say that it is only the terms of "expression, adoptions, first borns, nations, etc. all you are doing is explaining what differences there are in different verses. That's obvious. But to put and bring down your Creator on your level of thinking is not good. begotten is something one should never attribute to their Creator

 

[Soapy]

That is not what I said at all -you misunderstand.

Also -even Jesus Christ said -in biblical scripture -not to pray to him -but to God the Father.

God did not sire physically... The being known as the Word -who was with God before man was created -willingly allowed God to place him within a human body in order to experience human life firsthand -in order to become a better mediator/high priest between man and God.

To say he was with God and also was God can be confusing. All beings are made of what God is -even ourselves.

Etritonatin, ‘God’ is a TITLE. It refers to THE FATHER: YHWH.

Understand what ‘GOD’ means. If you can do that then you will understand what ‘God is God’ means!!

((p.s. ‘God’ means : ‘Ruler, Judge, supreme, uttermost in power and authority, king, majesty, glorious wonder, highest of all, … ’. This is the meaning of the TITLE, ‘God’. This applies to ALL Beings and things that are or claim to be such which is why there are ‘many Gods’ in belief systems. Each such ‘God’ (by TITLE) is given a personal NAME to distinguish one from another. However, since the Jews believed in ONLY ONE such ‘GOD’, they initially shorten the process and just say ‘[our] God’. Of course, later on, when among the Egyptians, they grew to mingle so much with them that they became overfamiliar with the Egyptian Gods. The Jews were mesmerised by the ceremonies and attractiveness of the foreign Gods that they began admiring them. When Moses was going to them he realised this and asked of the jewish God what NAME he should use to differentiate the TRUE GOD from the foreign Egyptian God. It would be pointless just to go and say, ‘God said to go into the wilderness and worship your God’.. they had almost forgotten their God from among the foreign Gods. So the jewish God gave them a distinguishing name - A NAME ABOVE ALL OTHER NAMES: ‘YHWH’. Thus, by this name the God of Israel distinguished himself from all others who were called God. However, the Jews took to misusing the name of their God so much so that they banned themselves from using his name in case they blasphemed and sinned. So, they reverted to just using the TITLE, ‘God’, on the understanding that they meant ‘YHWH’. In relating to people of other beliefs it was appropriate to say, ‘Our God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’. This way they avoided swearing by, of abusing the name, ‘Yhwh’. Since the scriptures, and certainly the New Testament, is written to believing or to be believing Jews and later, Christians, we need only say ‘GOD’ to point to YHWH. Most people find it inconvenient to say ‘The God … ‘ or ‘Our God’, and simplify it to just ‘God’.
So, that’s the back story.

‘God’ is a SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE.
‘God’ is also a TITLE.
‘God’ IS NOT THE PERSON…. ‘God’ is the TITLE of the Person.

The WORD OF [the] GOD IS GOD….
Understand this and it will open the gateway to the truth for you:
The word of THE PERSON whose title is ‘God’ is ‘God’ (Superlative Adjective).

• The Judge is GOD in his courtroom
• The chess master is God of his game
• The principal is God of his school
• Yhwh is God of all whom are called God(s)

Understand?

 

[MyM]

Etritonatin, ‘God’ is a TITLE. It refers to THE FATHER: YHWH.

Understand what ‘GOD’ means. If you can do that then you will understand what ‘God is God’ means!!

((p.s. ‘God’ means : ‘Ruler, Judge, supreme, uttermost in power and authority, king, majesty, glorious wonder, highest of all, … ’. This is the meaning of the TITLE, ‘God’. This applies to ALL Beings and things that are or claim to be such which is why there are ‘many Gods’ in belief systems. Each such ‘God’ (by TITLE) is given a personal NAME to distinguish one from another. However, since the Jews believed in ONLY ONE such ‘GOD’, they initially shorten the process and just say ‘[our] God’. Of course, later on, when among the Egyptians, they grew to mingle so much with them that they became overfamiliar with the Egyptian Gods. The Jews were mesmerised by the ceremonies and attractiveness of the foreign Gods that they began admiring them. When Moses was going to them he realised this and asked of the jewish God what NAME he should use to differentiate the TRUE GOD from the foreign Egyptian God. It would be pointless just to go and say, ‘God said to go into the wilderness and worship your God’.. they had almost forgotten their God from among the foreign Gods. So the jewish God gave them a distinguishing name - A NAME ABOVE ALL OTHER NAMES: ‘YHWH’. Thus, by this name the God of Israel distinguished himself from all others who were called God. However, the Jews took to misusing the name of their God so much so that they banned themselves from using his name in case they blasphemed and sinned. So, they reverted to just using the TITLE, ‘God’, on the understanding that they meant ‘YHWH’. In relating to people of other beliefs it was appropriate to say, ‘Our God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’. This way they avoided swearing by, of abusing the name, ‘Yhwh’. Since the scriptures, and certainly the New Testament, is written to believing or to be believing Jews and later, Christians, we need only say ‘GOD’ to point to YHWH. Most people find it inconvenient to say ‘The God … ‘ or ‘Our God’, and simplify it to just ‘God’.
So, that’s the back story.

‘God’ is a SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE.
‘God’ is also a TITLE.
‘God’ IS NOT THE PERSON…. ‘God’ is the TITLE of the Person.

The WORD OF [the] GOD IS GOD….
Understand this and it will open the gateway to the truth for you:
The word of THE PERSON whose title is ‘God’ is ‘God’ (Superlative Adjective).

• The Judge is GOD in his courtroom
• The chess master is God of his game
• The principal is God of his school
• Yhwh is God of all whom are called God(s)

Understand?

That is why in Islam, God says his name- ALLAH as to not identify with the other meanings.

 

[sojourner]

But in Christianity, they put God on their level as man

Hold on there, Cochise! God gave up divinity per Philippians. That’s not something we did.

He created mankind to worship him,

God created us for love.