Pilate

Normally when you compare two persons (or things) it is because they are similar. Jesus "became" better than the angels. This implies that there was a time when he was not "better" thatn the angels.
In the following verses, the writer of Hebrews, again, compares Jesus to angels: “For to which of the angels :angel: said he {God} at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? ... But to which of the angels :angel: said he {God} at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool?� (Hebrews 1:5, 13 KJV) The expression "to which of the angels" implies that God made a choice. "Which of the angels" give the impression that Jesus was part of the group. And God gave Jesus a "better name" than he gave to the other angels.
The writer of Hebrews called Jesus “the first-born�: “And when He again brings the first-born {Jesus} into the world ...� (Hebrews 1:6 NASB) This title, and various ambiguous verses in various books of the New Testament, caused the early Church fathers to argue whether God begat Jesus through a mysterious birth or created Jesus (as he created the angels). The designation “first-born� implies that there are others to follow. Since the Bible does not mention (or imply) a “second-born,� and since the writer of Hebrews wrote that God “created� Jesus (see below), the designation “first-born� is merely an honorary title applied to Jesus, just as the title “Son of God� is an honorary deisgnation. In those days people valued their first-born -especially first-born sons- more than their second or third-born children. Jesus’ designations “first-born� and “Son of God convey significance only. Here is a verse that dispels the above confusion: “So Christ did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ � (Hebrews 5:5 NIV) The phrase “today I have become your Father� implies that yesterday God was not his Father. It implies adoption. In other words, God adopted Jesus as his Son (the “first-born� Son, the most valuable Son) and he appointed him as high priest.

(Sorry, the Greek fonts did not work in the following example - any help on this?-. So I typed the greek with egnlish letters.)
In the following verses, the writer of Hebrews indicated that God created Jesus: “… holy brothers ... consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus. He is faithful to the maker of him {Gr. piston onta tw poihsanti auton -- it may also be rendered: faithful to his maker, or faithful to the one who created him}, like Moses {Gr. ώς καί (ο) Μωϋσης – i.e. who was faithful to God} in His {God’s} whole house.� (Hebrews 3:1-2) Jesus is faithful to God as Moses. The Amplified Bible reads: “… as Moses was also faithful in the whole household [of God].� (Hebrews 3:2 AB) (Here, again, the writer of Hebrews compared Jesus to Moses.) Jesus “is faithful to the maker of him� indicates that God created Jesus. All Greek manuscripts agree on this reading: “piston onta tw poihsanti auton .� (No one disputes the authenticity of this ancient reading.)
Jesus and the angels are similar in that they all were created by God.
For a complete discussion of this point (and how the Christian translators mistranslated the Greek text, which says that Jesus was created by God) go to the following web site.
Did the Writer of Hebrews Believe that Jesus is God?
http://www.prudentialpublishing.info...w_of_Jesus.htm

Chili

No, the angel was the messenger from God to Jesus that declared Jesus son of the most high and despatcher of his own angles (7) like the wind with flames of fire = purgatory in the full controversy of verse 13.Unless first-born makes reference to the rebirth of the long lost child here within Joseph.

Pilate

Spin,
I have been furnishing you with verses that provide the answers. It is your turn to furnish you own facts to support what your claim. Don't expect me to do it for you.
take care,
Pilate

spin

What does the same verb (in the form poihsas) mean exactly, in 1 Sam 12:6?


spin

Pilate

Spin,
good question! Thank you for pointing this verse out to me. Using the same meanining as I assigned to the word in Hebrews, I would translate "Witness is the Lord who created Moses and Aaron." However, several translations read "appointed", the English Standard Version and KJV read "advanced." And the word "appointed" in this case can be valid. I am currently making a study of this verse (in comparison to the verse in Hebrews) and it looks that I will soften my position. Translations are not ridgid and there is space for variation. I am thankful you pointed this out to me and if you have any comments to help me out let me know. I am all ears.
Pilate

Pilate

May I please help you at this point? You probably know this, but for the benefit of all who read these postings, there is no record in the historical books of Josephus, of a messianic pretender who claimed to be "theos" (other than the Testimonum, which is a Christian insertion in Josephus' writings.)
And Jesus, did not claim to be "Theos" either.
I recommend a good book to read about the historical Jesus and his mission:
"The Wilderness Revolt" By Diane Kennedy Pike and R. Scott Kennedy.

Based on what I know (I have done a thorough study of the subject), I agree with your above statements.
I agree with the above, except that the writer(s) of John, did not declare Jesus God, in John 1:1, or anywhere else in that book.
John called the Word "a god" in the sense of a pre-existent "divine being."
(The Jehovah Witnesses grasped this concept better than most Christians. Give credit where credit is due.)

Here is some background information to help you understand John 1:1.
The Gospel of John was not written by a disciple of Jesus and it was not written FOR the original followers of Jesus (the Jewish Christians- Ebionites). They did not read Greek. They were uneducated and spoke Aramaic (the common language of Israel at the time). By the same token, none of the Greek gospels were used in Jerusalem, neither the Septuagint. Jesus did not use the Septuagint (this is terribly important in analyzing Jesus' sayings).
The Septuagint was and still is the Bible of the Christians. The Jews abhorred it.
Christianity was conceived in Egypt ca. 250 BCE (through the endeavor of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Demetrius the librarian of the Alexandrian library, and the sweat of the Seventy(two)??? Hellenist Jews) with the translation of the Septuagint (sounds strange? ... It is a matter of historical knowledge). The Septuagint marks the line of separation beween Jews and Christians and Jesus falls on the side of the Jews. Jesus was not a Christian and did not establish today's Christianity. (This sounds even more strange!!! I know.) The fetus of Christianity was nourished in Alexandria, it was nourished by the Greek culture, and eventually by Philo Judaeus (the obstetrician of Chrstianity), and brought to Jerusalem (and was exposed to the Essenes) at the time of the Pentecost by the Hellenist Jews (mentioned in Acts- the Greecians). The fetus was tossed out to Antioch, where Paul (the mid-wife of Christianity) found it and delivered it and called it Christ (the "spiritual" name of Jesus). Paul adopted it and along with Apollos, fed it milk; and the rest is history. Then everybody raised this child into a man from the Gnostics to Athanassius and Emperor Constantine. The historical Jesus was "an innocent bystander" to this saga. (This, is a summary of the history of Christinity in plain words. There are historical facts behind everything I mentioned here.)
Going back to the Gospel of John:
It was written many decades after Jesus, "to supplement" the synoptics (= prop up the theological ideas that evolved decades after the death of Jesus). The earliest fragments of manuscripts of this gospel were found in Egypt, which is a clue. The first commentary written on this gospel was by Heracleon (a Gnostic). The first 18 verses of this book (scholars call them the 'prologue') are unlike any verses in the New Testament (if you know the writings of Philo Judaeus you will understand these verses and the rest of this gospel). For example, you will not find anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus is called "the Word." (If I am wrong, correct me.)
This gospel is theologically unlike the synoptics, in many respects, primarily, in the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus. Notice, that in Matthew and Luke, even though Jesus is born miraculously, there is no mention or implication that he pre-existed. (There is more to explain, about the Gospel of John, but I will stop here.)

Divine beings were called 'gods,' or 'angels.'
Let me give you some examples from the Old Testament that will shed some light on those terms.
About the gods, the sons of God, mentioned in the Old Testament: “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.� (Psalms 82:1 NRSV) (This psalm is probably a relic of Ugaritic poetry.) The gods of the divine council (the council of El) worshipped God: “Worship him all you gods.� (Psalms 97:7 KJV) God was their god: “For the LORD your God is God of gods ...� (Deuteronomy 10:17 KJV) Even God acknowledged them as gods: “I {God} said You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.� (Psalms 82:6 NASB) In the post-exilic era, these verses presented a problem to the Jews. How can other gods worship their god when they now believed that there is only one god? Here is the solution: The Jews did not erase the word “gods� from their Scriptures. They merely interpreted those gods as angels. They considered angels as “improperly called gods.� (This definition is important in the study of how Jesus was turned into God.) Angels became “improperly called gods� and to make a distinction between those “improperly called gods� and God, from then on, God was called “the true God�: “But the LORD {Yahweh} is the true God ...� (Jeremiah 10:10 KJV) “See now that I {God}, even I, am he, and there is no {true} god with me.� (Deuteronomy 32:39 KJV) In the Hellenistic era, when the Hellenist Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek, they translated “gods� as “angels.� For example: “... the Most High ... fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods {i.e. his sons}.� (Deuteronomy 32:8 NRSV) The same verse in the Septuagint text reads, “the Most High ... fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of angels.� When Philo of Alexandria quoted this verse, he used the term of the Septuagint: “{God} fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of angels of God.� Clement of Rome, the first Apostolic father and Pope (from 88-97 CE or 92-101 CE), followed the wording of the Septuagint: “... he {God} established the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.� Here are more examples where the Septuagint translators translated the word “gods� as “angels�: “before the angels will I sing praise to you.� (Psalms 138:1) “Worship him all you angels.� (Psalms 97:7) In the following example the NASB translators used the earlier meaning, “gods,� (Heb. “elohim,�) while the KJV translators used the later meaning: “angel(s)�:
Original meaning: god(s)
“Yet You have made him {man} a little lower than God {Heb. elohim = gods} ...� (Psalms 8:5 NASB) Later meaning: angel(s)
“For you have made him {man} a little lower than the angels ...� (Psalms 8:5 KJV)

John believed that the reason Jesus called himself “Son of Godâ€? was because he was the angel (angels were called “sons of Godâ€?) whom God sent to save mankind. This is evident in the following passage: “The Jews answered, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself a god.’ Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods?â€? If those {the angels} to whom God spoke were called “godsâ€?--and the scripture cannot be annulled-- can you say that the one {me} whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God's Son?’ â€? (John 10:33-36) In the above passage Jesus quoted the following verse and then proceed to explain why he called himself the ‘Son of Godâ€?: “I {God} said You are gods{Septuagint: εγώ είπα θεοί εστε}, and all of you are sons of the Most High {Septuagint: υιοί υψίστου }.â€? (Psalms 82:6 NASB) John read the Septuagint: “God presides in the assembly of gods {Sept. ο θεος Î*στη εν συναγωγη θεων}; he gives judgment to gods {Heb. θεοÏ?Ï‚ διακÏ?ίνει}.â€? (Psalms 82:1) He interpreted this verse as applicable to Jesus, because he considered him a god (an angel). Some interpret these gods as earthly ‘judges’ but John did not interpreted them as such, because he did not consider Jesus as a judge. “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world ...â€? (John 3:17 KJV) “I pass judgment on no one.â€? (John 8:15 (NIV) “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.â€? (John 12:47 KJV

The above things may sound strange to most of you. But if you make a thorough study of the subject (study ancient history and ancient literature along with the Bible), without religious prejudice, you will discover that these facts make sense.
just trying to help
(forgive my typos and grammatical errors I can't spend more time on this)
take care,
Pilate

Pilate

[QUOTE=Pilate]
Yummyfur, (I like your name) :wave:
I will answer some of the questions for you:

12. Do you still think that the statement "angels or spirits were called gods" is not true?

Philo calls the angels "spirits" and "sons of God."
Here is a quote from Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis:
"But sometimes Moses styles the angels the sons of God, inasmuch as they were not produced by any mortal, but are incorporeal, as being spirits destitute of any body; or rather that exhorter and teacher of virtue, namely Moses, calls those men who are very excellent and endowed with great virtue the sons of God."
Yummyfur, according to the last definition, I, too, qualify as a son of God!
By the way: sorry girls! There is no such thing as "daughters of God."
All angels are male. (I can furnish evidence for this, too.)

13. Do you agree or dissagree that [B]"theos" is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resemble him in any way[/B]?
The above phrase, colored red, is the definition of the word "theos" as per THE NEW THAYER'S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON.

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.�

The above quotations come from Philo Judaeus. He inspired the writer of the Gospel of John.

In the foreword of The Works of Philo, David M. Scholer wrote, “Philo’s ideas about Logos-Wisdom are ... indispensable for New Testament studies ... most directly and dramatically in the interpretation of the Gospel of John ...�
In other words, to understand John 1:1, it will help to know what Philo wrote. He wrote about 60 to 70 years before "John."

We are here to learn from each other. Let us have a friendly non-competitive conversation. I want to be able to have my questions answered by the participants in this forum.

Pilate

Chili

[QUOTE=Pilate]Do you think maybe that these angels were satyr as God? To style an angel as God is not the same as them being God. The angel of light pretends to be God but is really only a god with a small g. To recognize Moses as an exhorter and teacher of great virtue is like calling him an evangelist with false promises because virtues are a gift of God and cannot be taught. These false promises is what led them into the promised land where they did not belong and therefore died nonetheless.

Jn. makes this concept very clear in John 6:49 and 59 wherein even the numbers 49 and 59 identify the highway to perdition without saying a word.

So I'd be reluctant to call myself a son of God especially if you think that boys are better than girls in the eyes of God (I realize it was in irony) since son of man has no gender but is the firstborn son of man in the androgyne image of God wherein he was created.

Pilate

[QUOTE=Chili]I don't know what you call a 'satyr,' but satyrs originated from 'wild goats' (example: Isaiah 13:19-99)

I basically agree with you. But I want to clarify:
The difference between using big 'G' and small 'g' is: God is a name. Now this is not easy to define: who God is and whose god he is. God is the supreme being of the monotheistic religions Judaism, Islam, Christianity (Trinity: a triplet:"monotheism'???), Zoroastrianism, and I would include the highest god of Plato.
Small 'g' god, is generic for spiritual beings (as a rule).

Could you explain by what definition 'son of man' has no gender?

Chili

[QUOTE=Pilate]Close enough!To be supreme must include subordinates and these are the lesser gods that must be converted. So also with Plato and his [daily] forms of the good and final form of the Good (we actually have daily masses and the "Christ-mass" to match that).Here is my opinion.

We were created in the image of God as male-and-female with the potential to become either male or female. This makes our sexual-ity an illusion and our sex the fruition of this illusion wherefore we have a sex identity and a gender identity that can be in disarray, or, conversely, out of proportion with our gender identity but no more and no less. They, these sex identities, are the handiwork of the Lord who formed them upon our will to be co-creator with God as 'like god' and therefore they are prone to human perversion of the ideal.

The above shows the depth of our human condition and thus son of man lies beneath this human condition where he is son instead of daughter because the woman was taken from man to be the continuing image of God. In this sense are both boys and girls equal in being man first and woman second to bear the son of man in the image of God each generation anew.