- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ June 30 2013,15:39) My view is not that I disagree that there are gods, but that we go around calling anyone who is considered 'theos' as a god.
Why do you buck against this so hard? If one is considered or called “theos”, then that one is being considered as and called “a god”.Theos means god, t8. If an angel is called theos, then that angel is being called a god, plain and simple.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2013,15:02) Why do you buck against this so hard? If one is considered or called “theos”, then that one is being considered as and called “a god”.
In Greek they would be called The god if it were referring to a particular one.Thus if the text doesn't use the definite article when talking of one, then it is probably not talking about a literal god, but speaking in a qualitative sense.
The God of this age is clear. It is a particular being called theos. That is an example of how a being can be literally a god, but is not the Most High God. This example is not qualitative, it is literal. Satan is a father. The father of lies and murder. And because he runs the world system, he is the god of that system. And we know he is nothing like the Most High and yet he is a god, or the God of this world.
But where is a Pharisee singled out and called a god if they are called gods? It is either the God or qualitatively god or like God. Where is an angel called God of they are called elohim. Where is Michael called a god, when is Gabriel called a god. Where are they called THE God?
You are arguing in essense that those that are qualitatively called theos are each singularly a god as in a literal god. But I believe that scripture is not taking literally in those instances. And that seems to be the view of Greek scholars too. Even Greek speakers today can tell you that.
When most people think of God or what that entails, it is usually defined as one who is the Most High or an originator,. such as the Father of spirits. While one who represents God may be called theos qualitavely, but I don't see in scripture where they are called The God in a context that is not talking of the Most High but referring to them, even though they are not YHWH.
I guess what I am saying is that your indefinite article 'a' amounts to the Greek definite article. The problem is that there is no definite article for example with the Pharisees being theos. So if that is the case, then Pharisees who are theos, are not each a god, because in Greek they are not called The God of….
I am not comfortable with putting in the indefinite article in John 1:1c. It is not there, and I don't believe there is any reason to put it there.
So in case you missed it, I agree that Satan is a god because he is called the God of this age.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2013,15:17) Are these beloved spirit sons of God “false gods”? Are they only “so-called gods”? Are they only “qualitatively gods”?
Yes they are theos in a qualitative sense. Each is not a literal God. If that is the case, I could call myself a god if I believe that I am a son of God.Are you a god?
Quote (t8 @ July 01 2013,04:20) In Greek they would be called The god if it were referring to a particular one.
Jehovah is called “god” many times in the NT where there is no definite article written. During those times, is He being called “qualitatively god”?Quote (t8 @ July 01 2013,04:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2013,15:17) Are these beloved spirit sons of God “false gods”? Are they only “so-called gods”? Are they only “qualitatively gods”?
Yes they are theos in a qualitative sense. Each is not a literal God.
Deuteronomy 32:17
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.Are these demons being called gods by Moses? Or do you suppose Moses was calling them “qualitatively god”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2013,14:37) Jehovah is called “god” many times in the NT where there is no definite article written. During those times, is He being called “qualitatively god”?
Jehovah is literally and qualitatively God.Satan is literally and qualitatively the Devil/devil.
Adam is literally Adam and qualitatively adam.
I could refer to Adam as adam if the context was pointing to Adam. I could refer to the Devil as devil if the Devil was already singled out and in the context.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2013,14:41) Deuteronomy 32:17
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.Are these demons being called gods by Moses? Or do you suppose Moses was calling them “qualitatively god”?
Yes they were qualitatively gods because people were treating them as if they were God. So they were sacrificing not to the literal true God, but to others as if they were God.Ask yourself if they are literally God, or are taking the place of God.
I don't believe they were literally JEHOVAH. But tell me what words in that text tell you that Moses wasn't calling them literal gods.
They sacrificed to new gods – gods their fathers had not known. How does one read that and NOT just believe it for what Moses said? What PERSONAL agendas are being followed by people who must ADD the implication of “qualitatively” into that verse? Surely Moses didn't say they sacrificed to “those who were qualitatively Jehovah” – did he?
So why would you ADD that implication?
t8, this is really easy: Is Jehovah the MOST HIGH god? YES or NO?
Since the only honest answer is “YES”, the follow up question is: Can Jehovah possibly be the MOST HIGH god if there are no LESS HIGH gods for Him to be the god OF? YES or NO?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,08:55) I don't believe they were literally JEHOVAH. But tell me what words in that text tell you that Moses wasn't calling them literal gods.
Maybe I should clarify.There is one who is God in identity. Actually Satan is also identified as a god too. Others are gods.
If Moses was calling someone theos, then they were either, the Theos who is identified as YHWH, a false theos, or one who is under the authority of theos and is called that by office or qualitatively.
Likewise if I was referring to adam, I would identify Adam as the first man. Actually Jesus is also Adam too). Others are adam, such as Eve, myself, yourself. The latter are in nature adam or are qualitatively adam in that they have adam's nature, but are not identified as Adam himself.
Notice that there is little difference between the last two paragraphs. I am sure you agree with the latter paragraph, so just take that understanding and apply it to the first one.
Mike, I was just doing some formatting to a page about the Trinity and what the second century father's taught. I thought I would re-quote this from Origen as I just read it.
and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.
Origen who knew the niceties of the Greek tongue spends quite a bit of writing on teaching the difference between the definite article and lack of one. Sure it is a general rule and not always applicable because sometimes the context itself is definite and thus one is not required. Same goes for English.
But the point I want to make from Origen's point is that there was a difference between The Theos and theos.
So, to a Greek speaker, where does the indefinite article (a) fall. Is it converted back to Greek as 'THE' or is it removed?
In some cases it might work adding in 'a' because we in English say 'a man'. But even that example is not always correct. If we say, “Eve is a man”, then what we are really saying is “Eve is male”, when what we wanted to say was “Eve belongs to mankind”.
In John 1:1c, I am not convinced that just adding in the indefinite article is relaying the correct meaning to an English speaker, just as adding it in the indefinite article in 'Eve is a man' renders wrongly to most who speak English.
The job of a translator is to convey the true meaning of each verse and following the same rules do not always come out with the same results.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,08:55) Is Jehovah the MOST HIGH god? YES or NO? Since the only honest answer is “YES”, the follow up question is: Can Jehovah possibly be the MOST HIGH god if there are no LESS HIGH gods for Him to be the god OF? YES or NO?
Yes he is the most high God.It doesn't matter if it is saying that he is the Most High and God or the Most High God, because his counsels are called theos by reason of their office. So he has authority over those who are theos.
But if Pharisees held the seat of Moses and were called 'theos' because of that office, then was Nicodemus a god?
Yes or no.
Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,06:04) Actually Satan is also identified as a god too. Others are gods.
That is all I'm trying to get acknowledged here. WHO, exactly, is one of these “others” that is a god? You say Jehovah and Satan. Who else is a god?Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,06:04) Likewise if I was referring to adam, I would identify Adam as the first man. Actually Jesus is also Adam too). Others are adam, such as Eve, myself, yourself. The latter are in nature adam or are qualitatively adam in that they have adam's nature, but are not identified as Adam himself.
I have NEVER claimed that anyone else is IDENTIFIED as “the Most High God Jehovah”. But to say Satan is identified as a god is NOT to say he is identified as “God”, right?Now tell me which of those mentioned in your explanation above is NOT literally and legitimately a man. You cannot say I am qualitatively adam WITHOUT also acknowledging that I am an adam. Do you understand this point? YES or NO?
And if I am an adam who is not identified as THE Adam, does it then make me a “false adam”, or a “so-called adam”? YES or NO? Does it make me a vice regent, or “under the authority of” Adam himself? YES or NO?
I assume in advance that your honest answers to the last two questions will be “NO”. So now it's YOU who needs to take your understanding of the second paragraph, and apply it to the first one……………
If Moses was calling someone theos, then they were either, the Theos who is identified as YHWH………..
Why? Could Moses call ME an adam without saying I was the adam who is identified as “Adam”? Of course he could. So why couldn't he call another a god without identifying that god as the Theos identified as “YHWH”? Your reasoning doesn't hold water.………a false theos………..
Why? Could Moses call me an adam without saying I was a false adam? Of course he could. So why then couldn't Moses call another one a god without saying he was a false god? Your reasoning doesn't hold up.………..or one who is under the authority of theos and is called that by office or qualitatively.
Why? Could Moses call me an adam without saying I was under the authority of Adam himself? Of course he could. So why couldn't he call another one a god without saying that one was under the authority of YHWH?You say Satan is legitimately a god, right? Is Satan a false god? NO. Is he being identified as YHWH when he is called a god? NO. Is he called god because he is under the authority of YHWH, and works as YHWH's vice regent? NO.
So………. why just Satan, and no one else?
Jehovah is called the god of gods (plural). Satan is only one god. And since Jehovah isn't the god of god (singular), there MUST BE other gods BESIDES Jehovah and Satan. You have said as much in your first quote above. I will wait to see who you think these OTHER gods besides YHWH and Satan are.
Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,08:12) It doesn't matter if it is saying that he is the Most High and God or the Most High God, because his counsels are called theos by reason of their office. So he has authority over those who are theos.
Jehovah has authority over EVERY BEING IN EXISTENCE, so that point is moot.Tell me WHY you think His counsels are called theos only “by reason of their office”. What “office” does Satan hold in the hierarchy of Jehovah that enables him ALONE to be a god other than Jehovah, while none of the other angels are.
Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,08:12) But if Pharisees held the seat of Moses and were called 'theos' because of that office, then was Nicodemus a god? Yes or no.
I should avoid this question until you can show me in scripture that Nicodemus was called a god. You are asking “what ifs” here, t8. But I will answer it anyway.In the OT, although “elohim” most often referred to spirit beings, it occasionally was used of mighty men. So when reading the OT, we must adjust our 21st century understanding to their understanding.
By the time we reach the NT, the word “theos” is never used to describe a man. It always refers in the NT to a supernatural being. So when reading the NT, we must adjust our 21st century understanding to their understanding.
By the time we reached the 15th century, the word “god” always refers EXCLUSIVELY to the ONE and ONLY Almighty Creator of all things – or to a “false” or “so-called” god.
And by the time we reached the 20th century, men had decided to take that 15th century understanding of “god”, and apply it back into the NT and OT. But the only way this would work is if they took it upon themselves to ADD to the scriptures, and call all the other legitimate gods mentioned in them “false gods” and “so-called gods”.
In that way, they could FORCE their 20th century understanding of “god” upon the ancient Biblical understandings of “el” and “theos”.
And THAT, my friend, is really what we're arguing about here. You have fallen victim to their ADDITIONS, and have believed them when they told you the only “real” god is the one who created all things.
Gene, Ed, Abe, Marty, and 99% of Christians believe this same thing – but they believe it 100%, and apply the title “false god” to Satan – even though he is NEVER called such a thing in ANY scripture.
So what puzzles me about you is that you acknowledge that Satan is a legitimate god who is NOT Jehovah while the rest all say he is a “so-called god”, or a “false god”.
In that way, you have aligned yourself with the scriptures, which simply call Satan a god – WITHOUT ever saying he is “false”, or “so-called”.
And the fact you are able to go against the 20th century teachings of men (who aim to protect the Bible from itself) when it comes to Satan, makes me even more curious about why you stop only at Satan. What is so special about him that he alone is a god other than Jehovah, when his spirit brothers are not?
Anyway, the answer to your question above is “NO”. Nicodemus would not be called a god because he lived in NT times……… a time when men were no longer being called “theos” or “el”.
If you asked the same question about Abraham, or Samuel, etc., my answer would be different because they lived in OT times when men were occasionally called “el”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,05:19) Tell me WHY you think His counsels are called theos only “by reason of their office”. What “office” does Satan hold in the hierarchy of Jehovah that enables him ALONE to be a god other than Jehovah, while none of the other angels are.
Satan is literally a God, THE God of this age. He is not theos by any qualitative reason relating to YHWH. He is the father of lies and originator of murder and the God of this age. His ways do not originate in God or Jesus. Satan is another God, the adversary of God. Satan is the origin of evil. It is his baby so to speak, so he is the father of that, and the god of that. Also Baal is not theos by reason of representing YHWH. But these idols and demons stand in the place of God and are false gods on the sense of Exodus 20:3:
“You shall have no other gods before me.”Whereas Jesus or counsels are not theos in any sense mentioned above. but by reason of representing YHWH as being part of his counsel.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,05:19) In that way, you have aligned yourself with the scriptures, which simply call Satan a god – WITHOUT ever saying he is “false”, or “so-called”.
If you don't like the term false god, then I will use other god as in we should have no other gods before him.Satan is THE God of this age. Not a god of this age because there is one god of this age.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,05:19) And the fact you are able to go against the 20th century teachings of men (who aim to protect the Bible from itself) when it comes to Satan, makes me even more curious about why you stop only at Satan. What is so special about him that he alone is a god other than Jehovah, when his spirit brothers are not?
He is THE God of this age. He is unique in that respect.I don't know of another who is THE God of a whole domain but YHWH and Satan. But before you think that I am giving our adversary too much credit, may I remind you that one child of God is better off and has more power than Satan because one child of God has YHWH, and YHWH is the God of the living not the dead.
Satan was the first to rebel. He is the father of lies. His domain is evil. So he is different to all others who are called theos. Notice also that Satan's counsel are not called theos and neither is Satan theos in that sense. Only those who are of the counsel of YHWH are qualitatively theos.
We have two who are originators of their domain because there are two domains. Light and Darkness. Each has a Most High God in their respective domains. Although when you consider all things and domains, there is one God the Father who is even over all the domain of evil. It is not of him, but he has conquered it.
If I taught that the Word was a god, then I would have to allow for the Word was THE God too.
Because neither are in the original text, therefore it would be a matter of bias as to which one we chose.Mike and T8…….. Paul said, God would send a strong delusion to them who do not love the truth , 2Ths2:11, so which of your Gods is doing that? , There is only one “true” God, to all “true” believers. If either of you two understood this, it would alone, prove to you there is only “one true God”, so all others are false Gods, except to the person who believes in them, through the working of their DELUDED minds.
The man of sin mentioned there, is a False “IMAGE” of Jesus, a MAN, being passed off, as a God, it was this false image of him being a GOD, which was started by the GNOSTICS, that the apostles were fighting to keep from infecting the church. When Jesus began to be portrayed as a GOD, is when Christianity started becoming a false religion, and the IMAGE of Jesus took on a change, which created THE IMAGE of A MAN OF SIN. It, (this false image), broke the first commandment , ” You Shall Have NO OTHER GOD BESIDES ME”.
Jesus is not a god of any kind never was and never will be? He is a 100% pure human being from his human berth into existence to this veryday. He will return as a SON OF MAN, just As he said he would.
Peace and love ……………………………gene
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 26 2013,11:02) If I taught that the Word was a god, then I would have to allow for the Word was THE God too.
Because neither are in the original text, therefore it would be a matter of bias as to which one we chose.
t8let me understand this ;
god = mighty ones ;in geneses it talks about many
Ge 10:8 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth.
Ge 10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD? that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.”
Ge 23:6 “Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.”
Ge 49:24 But his bow remained steady,
his strong arms stayed limber,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
Ex 3:19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him.
Ex 6:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”1Ch 27:6 This was the Benaiah who was a mighty man among the Thirty and was over the Thirty. His son Ammizabad was in charge of his division
Job 12:21 He pours contempt on nobles
and disarms the mighty.
Job 24:22 But God drags away the mighty by his power;
though they become established, they have no assurance of life.their could and are many mighty ones in this world ,Napoleon and Hitler where some of them ,but anyone that knows the true God should know witch his the almighty one in heaven
all mighty men only live a dream on earth so to speakfor “the WORD” to be “a” god(mighty one) is not against many other scriptures for anyone send by God almighty his a mighty one in the name of his God
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
