John Kesler

How about these possibilities?

1) "Angel" could be translated "messenger" which renders moot the question of whether Paul thought that Jesus was an angel. Young's Literal Translation renders the latter part of the verse as "...as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus"

2) "Angel" is the correct translation, but Paul was using hyperbole. For example I might say, "On that cruise ship I was treated like a king, like the ruler of the universe." "King" and "ruler of the universe" are not the same thing, and so, too, it may be with "angel/messenger of God" and Jesus. Paul increases the importance of the words to accentuate the kindness shown to him.

Pilate

The word "divine" is synonymous with heavenly, celestial, godly, not synonymous with god. Divine means "having a godlike nature" where as god is a being.
I hope this helps

Pilate

Is this an angel? --> :notworthy
If angels are not gods, to whom is God talking here?
“I {God} said You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High {Heb. Elyon }.� (Psalms 82:6 NASB)
By the way, If you could look at the 19 questions I posted in my answer to Yummy Fur, you could let me know what is our common ground. It helps to establish a common ground before we can iron out our differences.
It would also be more productive if we had a one-to-one discussion. As it stands, various people make comments and we do not know what their position is.
I would be glad to discuss the subjct with anyone who is willing to follow through on a one-to-one basis.
If we are going to invest our time in this lets make it productive.
Pilate

Toto

I do not have any firm position on the questions you asked yummyfur. From my reading, it does appear that you are correct that angels were referred to as gods in Hellenistic times by Hellenistic Jews and others.

But I don't know if this means that Hellenistic thinkers used that as terminology, or if they thought that angels were on the same level as gods, or made of godly material, or what. And I don't know what conclusion you draw from that - does that mean that claims that Jesus was God were not very remarkable because gods and spirits were everywhere? That the doctrine that Jesus was part of a triune God was a much later invention? (I think many of us would agree with that.)

Pilate

John,
the point I was making is the word "angel" is synonumous with 'god.' And this was one of the 19 questions to establish to what degree we agree or disagree. If you agree with the rest of the 18 questions, then you agree that angels are also called gods.
As far as this particular question, you wrote "Angel" could be translated "messenger" which renders moot the question of whether Paul thought that Jesus was an angel.

Yes, 'angel' :angel: could be translated as messenger. And Jesus was a messenger from God: ..."for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son ..." Jesus came to bring the "good news" from God: salvation from Hell. Paul made a parallelism: he paralleled Jesus to an angel. Now, you wrote in your the example, "King" and "ruler of the universe" are not the same thing, Yes, they are not the same thing. But the parallelism implies a similarity: a king rules his small kingdom, as the ruler of the universe rules the whole world. Now as you said, Paul may have been making a hyperbole. By 'hyperbole' you imply that Jesus is greater than the angels. I agree: “Having become as much better than the angels, as he {Jesus} has inherited a more excellent name than they.� (Hebrews 1:3 NASB) You wrote: Paul increases the importance of the words to accentuate the kindness shown to him. I agree. However, wouldn't you agree that the parallelism of Jesus to angels suggests that Jesus and angels are of similar kind? The writer of Hebrews compared Jesus to angels. Whereas, according to Isaiah, no one should compare God to anyone else: “To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, as though we were alike?� (Isaiah 46:5 KJV) God is in a class by himself (because he is UNCREATED).
What do you think?
Pilate

Pilate

Todo, :wave:
first I want to thank you for posting that link to the web site about Angels. I located several of the quotations mentioned in that web site in the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls" by Michael Wise. Those quotations are very valuable. They are multiple pieces of evidence showing that the Essenes referred to angels as gods (which is during the Hellenistic Era). To the extent I have read, I am in agreement with the writer of that page. this gave me homework to do: locate more of his quotations. (I collect ancient quotations -concerning the beliefs of Christianity- and I welcome everyone to show me more.)

If you want to learn a little more about the use of the word "god" as "angel' read that page on Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria). There is too much to say about Philo here, we have no space. http://www.jesushistory.info/Philo_of_Alexandria.htm
The study of Philo is fundamental in undertanding the origins of Christianity.
He called the angels "gods." Philo wrote 20-40 years before the writers of the New Testament. Evidence within the New Testament shows that several New Testament writers (primarily Paul and John) read his writings.
Let me know what you think.
Pilate

Chris Weimer

Jesting sarcasm - but for reasons which spin has already stated.

Pardon, but I'm not assuring that Peter's definition was absolutely correct either, but that is merely what I also think it to be. Could we both be wrong? Yeah. OK.

Pilate

Toto,
I will give you my "conclusions", but I want to emphasize that these 'conclusions" are based on facts, for which there is no sufficent space to expose here.
That Jesus was called "a god" after his death (by Hellenist Jews and Gentiles) was normal (and proper), when you know that people believed that anyone who died continued to exist as a spirit, and spirits were called gods. Today, we do not call the spirits 'gods.' This is the big difference. We have to understand the meaning of words relative to the time they were used. And to do that we have to study the writings of that era.

If you study the writings of the early Church fathers (the Gentile Christians) in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, you will find that they referred to Jesus as 'a god,' second in importance to God.
However, the original Christians, the Jewish Christians (also known as Ebionites- called "Hebrews" in the book of Acts) did not refer to Jesus as "a god." The called him the "son of God," or the "prophet." And one has to study the writings of that era to ascertain the meaning of "son of God." It did not have the meaning that we give it today.
You wrote:"That the doctrine that Jesus was part of a triune God was a much later invention?" Yes! I cannot relate the history of how this took place right here (there is no space). You can read about it in the following web-site:
http://prudentialpublishing.info/
Go to the above page and scroll down to the links:
Did the early Church Fathers believe that Jesus was God?
The Origins of the Trinity Doctrine.
How the 4th century Church Fathers Declared Jesus Equal to God.
take care,
Pilate

Pilate

You are describing the function of angels. That is fine. But we are discussing that angels are called "gods."

When angels are called gods .... they are called gods. Is this true or false? Now the qualities of the angels is another subject. Yes, their qualities are different for God. And the question of who is God, is another whole subject which I would be glad to discuss. One subject at a time. It makes things easier to handle.


It does not matter what I call them. God called them gods: “I {God} said You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High {Heb. Elyon }.� (Psalms 82:6 NASB)
Now, wouldn't you agree that God in this verse called the angels "gods?" Aren't the angels called gods?
Let me know.
take care,
Pilate

Pilate

“God {Greek: Theos} is a Spirit {Greek: Pneuma}.� (John 4:24 KJV)
“Are they {the angels} not all ministering spirits ...?� (Hebrews 1:14 KJV)
Wouldn'd you agree that spirits are called gods?
Pilate