Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pilate · 09-11-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You should therefore see that the non-theophoric radical is -$w( for yhw$w( and not the analysis you give. (See also Elishua.)

We are working from the evidence. hw$( is just one form (hiphil) of the verb y$(. You can see the verb in Jer 11:12, 31:7. Hoshea is a name which in itself means salvation.

The LXX provides wshe as a transliteration with an eta (h) indicating the qere.

The form Yeshua is late, ie after the start of the tendency to reduce the theophoric YHW to Y-.

Spin,
you got me spinning alright! You sent me to this post to see what?
Where is "your previous post?"
Remember, I just joined and I don't know my way around. So, until I get on my feet, show me how to fiind it or send me the information you want me to see.

The subject was "The word was {with} God or the word was a god?"

As for a dictionary I use the New Thayer's Greek English Lexicon

I am all ears.
By the way, I don't believe in theories. I believe in facts.

take care,
Pilate

spin · 09-11-2005, 07:35 PM

Pilate, I think you may be referring back to my post #21, and your citation of post #50 somewhat threw me off in trying to work out what you referring to exactly. I you go to my post #21, you'll find my previous post from there was post #18, where you'll find a link to a Liddell and Scott entry.

spin

Pilate · 09-11-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

Firstly, if I think something you wrote is incorrect, I will tell you why it is, which I did, why do I need to ask you for information I already know?

There is no obligation here, to wait for your evidence, before posting contrary evidence.

Yes I did read that footnote, which is on the meaning of the word angel not the meaning of the word god, but it does not help the article out at all, which is probably why it was put in a footnote. It actually shows that angels were called angelos, and not theos(god) what a suprise. Therefore the earlier claim by the author that "Angels were spirits and in those days spirits were called ?gods.?" is not true. The footnote he gives, is hardly a good enough explanation of the usage for the word angelos, as he fails to point out this is how the Septuagint(Greek OT), available for probably at least 150 years before the Gospels, refered to such entities, and anyone coming out of this tradition would not use a term like theos if they meant angel. So when John uses the word theos, he means God, not angel, or he would use the word angelos.

Again above you state
" Now going to your point: You implied that the meaning of the word "god" in the passage of John is not "angel.""

The word John uses is theos, and he is perfectly aware of the word and usage of the Greek word angelos, but does not use it, we can be assured that he meant god and not angel. What more is there really to say.

Yummy fur,
I will gladly address your last point "John uses theos, and he is perfectly aware .." (I want to get into this deeper). But first lets us find out on what exactly we disagree.
Let me ask you these questions:
1.“Are not all angels spirits ...?�? (Hebrews 1:14 NRSV) do you agree with this or not?

2. Angels were spirits and in those days spirits were called “gods.�? For example, the Essenes called the angels “gods.�? A manuscript fragment found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 reads, “He {God} caused some of the sons of the world to draw near (Him) ... to be counted with Him in the community of the ‘gods’ ... (sharing) the lot of His holy ones ...�? (4Q181) The phrases “the community of the gods ... his holy ones�? are parallelisms. The word "gods" refer to angels.
Do you agree with this or not?

2. “O Pepi, you have gone away {died} to become a spirit, to become powerful as a god ... among the spirits, the Imperishable Stars.�?
Does this quotation give you the impression that spirits were called gods or not?

3.And the woman said to Saul, I saw gods {a spirit} ascending out of the earth. ... And Saul perceived that it was {the spirit of} Samuel ...�? (1 Samuel 28:13-15 KJV)
Is this sufficient evidence that spirits were called gods?

4. “... the last Adam {Jesus} became a life-giving spirit.�? (1 Corinthians 15:45 NRSV) Do you agree or disagree that people believed that after people die they continue to exist as spirits?

5. “Abraham ... left mortal things {he} ‘was added to the people of God’ {died}, received immortality, and became equal to angels.�?
Did Abraham become an angel?
6. Celsus wrote,“But when he {Jesus} had put off this flesh {died}, perhaps he became a god.�? Celsus wrote Jesus became a god. If Jesus became a spirit (according to Paul) or a god (according to Celsus) and Abraham became an angel, would you say these words are synonymous?

7. Origen wrote, “... he {Celsus} says, regarding those who come down to visit the human race, that they were angels: ‘But if you {Christians} say that they were angels, what do you call them? ... Are they gods, or some other race of beings? ... {Origen rebuts Celsus:} let us proceed to notice these remarks. For we indeed acknowledge that angels are ‘ministering spirits’ ... because they are divine they are sometimes termed ‘god’ in the Sacred Scriptures ...�?
Would you say that angels were called spirits or gods?

8. Paul called the angels “gods�?: “... there may be so-called gods in heaven ...�? (1 Corinthians 8:5 NRSV) In this sense he called the spiritual Jesus “a god.�? He wrote that the spiritual Jesus before he came to earth was “in the form of a god�?: “who, though he was in the form of a god {Gr. en morfe theou}...�? (Philippians 2:6) (Without the article 'tou': tou theou.) Angels are in the form of God. Paul implied that Jesus had the form of an angel. Here is another way that Paul said the same thing: “Who {Jesus} is the image of the invisible God ...�? (Colossians 1:15 KJV) Angels were images of God. “An image of God�? or “a form of God�? is a copy of God. Jesus was a copy of God. Paul never said that Jesus is God.
Would you say angels are also called gods?

9. Justin Martyr wrote, “And that Christ being Lord, and a god {Gr. theos - without the article ‘ο’}, the Son of God, and appearing ... as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire {appearing} as at the bush {when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush}, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom {he was the head angel who told Abraham that Sodom will be destroyed} ...�?
Does this quotation give you the impression that angel and god are synonymous? (Justin Martyr is using both of these nouns on Jesus.)

10. Also, “... there is said to be {in the Old Testament}, another god {Gr. theos, without the article ‘ο’} and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things {the Father} --above whom {above the Father} there is no other god--wishes to announce to them.�? Justin explained that this god, who announces the will of God to humans, appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses: “... He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called a god {Gr. θεος, without the article ‘ο’}, is distinct from Him {the Father} who made all things,-- {he is distinct} numerically {he is another person}, I mean, not [distinct] in will {i.e. he is united in purpose with the Father}. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He {the Father} who made the world--above whom there is no other god--has not willed Him both to do or say.�?
Does this quotation give you the impression that angel and god are synonymous?
(Does it help explain John 1:1?)

11. Paul paralleled “angel of God�? with “Christ Jesus�?: “...{you} welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.�? (Galatians 4:14 NRSV) Does this parallelism suggest that Jesus was an angel?

12. Do you still think that the statement "angels or spirits were called gods" is not true? (There is more where the above came from.)

13. Do you agree or dissagree that "theos" is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resemble him in any way?

14. Do you agree or dissagree that God is a spirit?

15. Do you agree or disagree that angels are likened to God?

17. Do you agree or disagree that Christians likened the spiritual Jesus to angels?

18. Do you agree or disgreee that the following quotations have strong resemblance to Joh 1:1?
“... the primal existence is God, and next to him is the Word of God.�?
“The Divine Word ... is placed in the closest proximity to the only absolutely existing God, without any partition or distance between them.�?

Please, cooperate with me and give me your Yes/no answers for each numbered questions. I want to know where exactly we disagree. Then we can address each disagreement separately. This way, our discussion will make progress and will have positive results. We don't want to be arguing just to be arguing. We want to cooperate to combine our knowledge to reach new frontiers.
Glad to be talking with you Yummy fur (what a name!),
Pilate

Chili · 09-11-2005, 09:55 PM

. . . but angels are not Gods. They are God send and have no mandate of their own or on their own initiative except satan who is a fallen angel and just a pretender and therefore not God. Mary is the queen of angels and She is in charge of their destiny except for Gabriel and Raphael. In other words, Mary runs the HS while we are in oblivion and if you do not know the difference that would be sufficient evidence for this.

How's that for a nice welcome!

Toto · 09-11-2005, 11:37 PM

We might need to split out the discussion of whether angels are gods.

NIV translates Gal 4:14 as:

Quote:

Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.

There is no indication here that Jesus is an angel.

But there is this from a course on Hebrews:

Quote:

Discontinous with the Old Testament, in the second-Temple period, angels are known as elim ('lym) (gods) (but see "sons of gods" in Ps 29:1; 89:7[6]). This occurs in the War Scroll (1.10, 11; 14.15-16; 15.14; 17.7; 18.6-7), Thanksgiving Hymns (15[7].28; 18[10].8) and Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400 frg. 1, col 1.20; col. 2.17; 4Q503 48-50.4; 1Q22 4.1; 4Q400 frg. 2, col. 1.7; 4Q401 frg. 14, col. 1.5; frg. 16, col. 1.1; 4Q401 frg. 2, col. 1.2; 4Q402 frg. 4, col. 1.8; frg. 9, col. 1.2; 4Q403 frg. 1, col. 1.21, 26; col. 2.26; 4Q404 frg. 19.1-3; 4Q405 frg. 14-15, col. 1.3) 11QMelchizedek (2.14) and Ages of Creation (4Q180-81) (4Q181 frg. 1.4). In the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice, the term elim is frequently followed by a nomen rectum, a word in genitive construct that qualifies the elim: "elim of light" (4Q403 frg. 1, col. 2.35); "elim of knowledge" (4Q400 frg. 2, col. 1; 4Q403 frg. 1, col. 1.31; 4Q405 frg. 23, col. 1.8); "elim of majesty" (4Q403 frg. 1, col. 1.38); "elim of loftiness" (4Q403 frg. 1, col 1.33); "elim of eternity" (4Q405 frg. 19.3) (see also the phrase "elim of purity" in 4Q286 frg. 7, col. 1.6). Other new names for angels in the second-Temple period include "glorious ones" (nkbdym) (1QH 18[10].8; 2 En 21:1, 3) and "sons of heaven" (bny šmym) (1 En 13.8; 14.3; 1QapGen 2.5, 16; 5.4; 1QH 11[3].22; 1QS 4.22; 11.8; 4Q181 frg. 1, col. 1.2; 11QMelch col. 2.5?). They are also sometimes called "mighty ones" (gbwrym), which has military overtones (1QH 11[3].35-36;13[5].21; 16[8].11-12; 18[10].34-35; 1QM 15.14; 4Q402 frg. 1.4; 4Q403 frg. 1, col. 1.21-22; 4Q405 frg. 13.5).

You may find more at that URL of interest. But I'm not sure where it leads.

yummyfur · 09-12-2005, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

Yummy fur,
I will gladly address your last point "John uses theos, and he is perfectly aware .." (I want to get into this deeper). But first lets us find out on what exactly we disagree.
Let me ask you these questions:
1.“Are not all angels spirits ...?�? (Hebrews 1:14 NRSV) do you agree with this or not?

First a very quick response before boring everyone with long qoutes. To show the logic of your basic argument

spirit is a generic abstract term for anything non-physical or outside of regular nature.

Angels are spirits

Gods are spirits

therefore since spirits are sometimes called god, angels are god - False

to give a counter example

Physical entities is a generic abstract term for anything with solid material form.

Dogs are physical entities

Men are Physical entities

Therefore since physical entities are sometimes called men, dogs are men - False

Haran · 09-12-2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

It wouldn't be in the accusative case anyway, not with a linking verb. Once again, thank you Mr. Obvious.

I can't tell if this is atttitude or self-deprecation on your part, because you have simply restated what I wrote, that a predicate nominative comes after a linking word (which is why I said this is the reason God would not have been in the accusative case...it follows a linking verb...it is a predicate nominative).

Quote:

You might want to check out here for usage of the Greek definite article. E.21 would suggest that theos is qualitative, thus "The word was God" - furthermore, below it, gives the translation that Peter Kirby gave earlier. Qualitative, then, wouldn't suggest that the word itself was god, but that it contained the properties of god, making it divine.

Note, from that page, "theos in John 1:1c is probably qualitative". I do not particularly disagree with Peter's analysis, anyway, it may be right. However, what I wrote was definitely not wrong, as is borne out by the majority of translations.

spin · 09-12-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

I can't tell if this is atttitude or self-deprecation on your part, because you have simply restated what I wrote, that a predicate nominative comes after a linking word (which is why I said this is the reason God would not have been in the accusative case...it follows a linking verb...it is a predicate nominative).

Plainly attitude, as what you said was indeed obvious and probably reflects the case with verbs like eimi in all Indo-European languages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Note, from that page, "theos in John 1:1c is probably qualitative". I do not particularly disagree with Peter's analysis, anyway, it may be right. However, what I wrote was definitely not wrong, as is borne out by the majority of translations.

I don't think you can say that what you wrote is definitely not wrong, simply appealing to authority. You may still be wrong, but I think there are examples that might confirm that you are not wrong.

spin

Chili · 09-12-2005, 09:36 AM

Angles are messengers and they are send by God or by the God-head which includes the Father, the Son and the HS and there are no other Gods. When angels are called gods we are talking about qualities or virtues that are gifts of God but they are not God. Call them manifestations of God, if you like, but not God or you'll soon lose sight of the hierarchical structure of God which leads to the Father.

In service of the Father is the Mother who is the woman that presides over the Tree of Life from where the son is banned by Lord God upon the will of God. Ie. "God said" and Lord God acts upon his Word. This would be how the son becomes a "son of the world" who is in need of redemption that comes about upon the will of the Father (God in Jn.1:13) via Gabriel, thru Mary unto the greatness of the Lord who earlier expelled the son from Eden here now reborn to be added to the community of Gods = Christian.

The community of Gods are those in heaven and they are not angels but equals of God (Rev.14:13).

Quote:

2. Angels were spirits and in those days spirits were called “gods.�? For example, the Essenes called the angels “gods.�? A manuscript fragment found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 reads, “He {God} caused some of the sons of the world to draw near (Him) ... to be counted with Him in the community of the ‘gods’ ... (sharing) the lot of His holy ones ...�? (4Q181) The phrases “the community of the gods ... his holy ones�? are parallelisms. The word "gods" refer to angels.

Do you agree with this or not?

No since that would reduce God to an angel if those who find favor with God are counted with Him.

Edited to add that I take the philosophical leap that Christians are God if they have the mind and body of Christ.

Pilate · 09-12-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Actually, it could also be an adjective, see Liddell and Scott, at the end -- which is what I understand it to be.

spin

I went to the page of Liddel and Scott

If you were referring to the following as Adjective,

III. as Adj. in Comp. theôteros

The word 'theoteros' is not 'theos.' It is a comparison: "more godly"
I looked around the rest of that paragraph (III.) of adjectives, and clicked on the words 'theos.' I did not see an example or and explanation of how the word 'theos' can be an adjective. If you can give me an example that would help.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2005, 07:35 PM	#52
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Pilate, I think you may be referring back to my post #21, and your citation of post #50 somewhat threw me off in trying to work out what you referring to exactly. I you go to my post #21, you'll find my previous post from there was post #18, where you'll find a link to a Liddell and Scott entry. spin

09-11-2005, 09:55 PM	#54
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . but angels are not Gods. They are God send and have no mandate of their own or on their own initiative except satan who is a fallen angel and just a pretender and therefore not God. Mary is the queen of angels and She is in charge of their destiny except for Gabriel and Raphael. In other words, Mary runs the HS while we are in oblivion and if you do not know the difference that would be sufficient evidence for this. How's that for a nice welcome!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.