 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi TBax | TBax wrote: | | If Heb 2:7 is indeed inspired of God then it is correct in applying "elohim" from Ps 8 to "angels" as Heb 2:7 shows. God's word is true and cannot be nullified. Even if the writer penned it from the Septuagint, God didn't deny it. |
Yes, true, it isn't denied, that's what makes questioning the "angels can be gods" thing next to impossible. But consider this:
Acts 17:28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
* Does that make Epimenedes and Aratus inspired? Clearly not.
* Does that confirm that as a reliable translation of Epimenedes and Aratus? (hypothetical, Paul is quoting texts which didn't need translation).
* Does it make the comments true, irrespective of who said them? Yes and no. Yes when Paul does it and Paul goes on “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ [<--Aratus ends here] 29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." then yes. But no when we go back to Aratus and find out that the bit after the bit Paul quoted is polytheistic nonsense.
If Heb 2:7 wasn't debagging a Christ-less-than-angels verse I might be inclined to let this one LXX verse redefine "gods" in the whole OT. But in context if the LXX hadn't been badly translated in Ps8:5 it would never have become a problem as a Christ-less-than-angels verse in the first place.
But as I said. "gods can mean angels" is too entrenched to stand against it. There's nothing to be gained by me persuing this. And it isn't because you, TBax, aren't a good listener, it's just one of those things that can't be undone.
God bless
S |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steven3,
Hi,
| Steven wrote: | Acts 17:28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
* Does that make Epimenedes and Aratus inspired? Clearly not. |
Sorry, but that conclusion is missing the point. Don't get me wrong, you are right that the poets were not inspired. Paul was using something they correctly said to make a point. By it being recorded in the Bible it becomes inspired and true undeniably.
Many of the things Moses wrote were probably from other writtings or records as well, but since they were written in the Bible they became part of God's inspired word. True and undeniable!  That doesn't make the original sources inspired of God, but God chose what should be included.
Heb 2:7 is quoting Ps 8:5 and says "angel" in the place of "elohim". That is God's word, true and undeniable. Jehovah is the God of gods.
| Steven wrote: | | But in context if the LXX hadn't been badly translated in Ps8:5 |
Steven, I do believe that is just an opinion. One that the first century Christians didn't agree with. God didn't seem to think it was a bad translation either.
Take care.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Steven3:
Ultimately, yes, I do believe in only one Logos, because the idea/word/principle found flesh in Christ, was there in God's foreknowledge when He made the stars, birds and so on in order to beget Christ. But my one Logos is Galilee first, then Genesis - it's the exact mirror image of the one Logos doctrine of Athanasius found in coeternal preexistence.
So for terms of making it clear that Jesus was really conceived, began, started in 4BC - and is really son of his mother and Father -- I'd have to stress no, there are two different Logos -- to be true and clear. |
Ok, but for terms of making it clear what/who is the Logos....God in His infinitude has no beginning. When He became detectable in the beginning, all that was/is detectable of God was/is the Logos. That is....all that is known or knowable of God is the Logos. God Himself does not change, but what becomes knowable of Him may increase, thus ultimately, as you have stated, the Logos is one (regardless of how many beginings). To carry this rational further.....God in His infinitude and the Logos are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
TBax,
In reference to Isaiah 44:8 you said....
| Quote: | TBax:
In Isaiah God was comparing himself with the gods the nations worshiped. |
....which is correct to a degree, but when we consider Scripture as a whole and especially Ps 82 (I made a correction, originally I had said Ps 8, I actuall ment Ps 82. Sorry. Hopes this clears up any confussion.) we see that it is a little more far reaching than what the phrase 'the gods of the nations' bring to mind.
Those creatures in Ps 82 who were created with a free will (a will of thier own) were would-be gods. They were given the power to establish a righteous order, had they done this they would be gods or godlike. They misused their free will and misjudged. They did not choose God's perfect order but sought to establish an order of their own, an order that led to an ultimate end of death and destruction. These creations/sons of God were gods (or godlike) until they misused thier free will....really just potential gods.
So those to whom God is talking in Ps 82, extends beyond what comes to mind when it is said that those in high judicial positions are considered gods. You make judements everyday......those are the sort of judgements God is referring to in Ps 82.
As a result of those misjudgements referred to in Ps 82, here we are on earth, compelled to establish our own sense of order. We in this earthly realm were never gods nor god-like. Isaiah makes that point......
Isaiah 44:
6 "This is what the LORD says—
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
Oh, I wanted to add something about the John 10 reference to Ps 82. The Jews believe(d) that the group being talked to in Ps 82 are the Jews who were at Mount Sinai, and the misjudgement spoken of in Ps 82 refers to the golden calf incident. Basically it was/is thier belief that they themselves were called gods (erroneously, imo), but Jesus, knowing this, was making the point, as He had done in the past, that they were hypocrites.
This belief of theirs is written in their midrash which is considered their law.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
Last edited by Dust on Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
The whole point of Isaiah is about the God they are to worship, and why they are going to be punished for leaving God and following other gods.
| Dust wrote: | Basically it was/is thier belief that they themselves were called gods (erroneously, imo), but Jesus, knowing this, was making the point, as He had done in the past, that they were hypocrites.
This belief of theirs is written in their midrash which is considered their law.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? |
Absolutly wrong. That was the belief of God, and Jesus verified it and showed it cannot be nullified. Unless you believe the Psalms are not scripture-inspired of God?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?
If you choose to deny scripture that is up to you Dust. By denying the scripture you are denying the point Jesus was making and saying the scriptures can be nullified. Is that what you believe?
| Dust wrote: | | The Jews believe(d) that the group being talked to in Ps 8 are the Jews who were at Mount Sinai, and the misjudgement spoken of in Ps 8 refers to the golden calf incident. |
Yes, Jesus was made a little lower then the golden calf. A false god, a lump of metal that cannot move, see, hear, or do anything.  Do you really believe that Dust? There aren't enough rolling eyes to show how ridiculous that is.
Besides, Hebrews already proved your point wrong. It shows these ones are angels.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | TBax:
If you choose to deny scripture that is up to you Dust. |
Of course I do not wish to deny Scripture at all, but I think your emphasis of 'YOU' in the John 10 passage is an incomplete emphasis. The point Jesus was/is making here in John 10 is not that the Jews were ever called gods, but He is rather pointing to their hypocritical handling of the matter, based on their own particular beliefs.
The emphasis should be....
34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: you are gods?
Why would Jesus say YOUR law and not THE law?
Do you believe the court in Ps 82 (correction made) are the Jews who were at Sinai? As I have indicated, I don't.
Last edited by Dust on Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
All scripture is inspired of God!!! Remember this.
In saying "YOUR LAW" Jesus was quoting Psalm 82: 6 “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,
--
This is a seperate point.
Ps 8:5 You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,
And with glory and splendor you then crowned him.
6 You make him dominate over the works of your hands;
Everything you have put under his feet:
This is the apostle Paul quoting Ps 8.
Heb 2: 7 You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.”
According to God's word these "elohim" in Ps 8 are angels. Hence verification that Jehovah is the God of gods.
Hmm. That was rather pleasent.  What happened?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey TBax,
I'm a pleasent sort of guy!
Anyway I must apologize.
In my last two postings where I made reference to Ps 8, I actually ment Ps 82. I made the correction.
In light of my correction, I would like to hear your comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
| Dust wrote: | | Do you believe the court in Ps 82 (correction made) are the Jews who were at Sinai? As I have indicated, I don't. |
Obviously not.
I think I see where you are going with this.
| Dust wrote: | | Oh, I wanted to add something about the John 10 reference to Ps 82. The Jews believe(d) that the group being talked to in Ps 82 are the Jews who were at Mount Sinai, and the misjudgement spoken of in Ps 82 refers to the golden calf incident. Basically it was/is thier belief that they themselves were called gods (erroneously, imo), but Jesus, knowing this, was making the point, as He had done in the past, that they were hypocrites. |
That doesn't make any sense though. Regardless of what the Jews may or may not have thought God did call these judges gods. That is what Jesus is refering too.  The truth in God's word that cannot be nullified.
Ps 82 is scripture inspired of God telling us God called these men gods. Jesus confirmed this and said the scriptures cannot be nullified, so it is true. It wouldn't make sense if Jesus was indicating their misconception cannot be nullified. So he wasn't drawing on their hypocrisy, but on the truth from God's word.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust | Dust wrote: | | Steven3 wrote: | Ultimately, yes, I do believe in only one Logos, because the idea/word/principle found flesh in Christ, was there in God's foreknowledge when He made the stars, birds and so on in order to beget Christ. But my one Logos is Galilee first, then Genesis - it's the exact mirror image of the one Logos doctrine of Athanasius found in coeternal preexistence.
So for terms of making it clear that Jesus was really conceived, began, started in 4BC - and is really son of his mother and Father -- I'd have to stress no, there are two different Logos -- to be true and clear. |
Ok, but for terms of making it clear what/who is the Logos....God in His infinitude has no beginning. When He became detectable in the beginning, all that was/is detectable of God was/is the Logos. That is....all that is known or knowable of God is the Logos. God Himself does not change, but what becomes knowable of Him may increase, thus ultimately, as you have stated, the Logos is one (regardless of how many beginings). To carry this rational further.....God in His infinitude and the Logos are one. |
Mm, well I have no problem saying that to you because I detect a dose of Dunn's 'Christology in the making' in your posts, but to most readers, particularly Evangelicals and literal fundamentalists, to say that the Ps33:6 and Luke1:2 Logos were the same (which for those who can handle this, yes ultimately) is asking for trouble. It'll inevitably turn Ps33:6 into saying "Oh, Jesus made Adam and Eve".
Maybe I can explain my caution by giving two examples:
i. Consider the number of Christians hung up about OT food laws and so on, unable to get past the type-antitype, shadow-substance relation of OT-NT. Or indeed separate human pattern-Christ relations like Adam-Christ, Moses-Christ, David-Christ or Hezekiah-Christ.
ii. Or consider the number of Christians who don't know (never been told?) that there are two creations in the Bible, two beginnings.
All told, I think it's safer for the time being to stick to emphasizing the difference between the Ps33:6 Logos and the Luke 1:2 Logos. Only by seeing both aspects clearly, distinctly, can the ultimate unity of the two be seen. (sounds like I'm saying, let the ear and the nose of the elephant both be touched!)
I think you can see where I'm coming from. 
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi TBax | TBax wrote: | | Steven wrote: | | But in context if the LXX hadn't been badly translated in Ps8:5 |
Steven, I do believe that is just an opinion. One that the first century Christians didn't agree with. God didn't seem to think it was a bad translation either. |
Well, yes, but I used to think that the writer of Hebrews didn't think it was a bad translation either, but then I noticed no other OT quote is ever introduced "somewhere someone said" DIEMARTURATO DE POU TIS LEGWN (Testatus est autem in quodam loco quis dicens  ), then I realised that the author of Hebrews wasn't as totally thrilled by the LXX rendering as the Victorians were.
Anyway, I'm not pushing this point, mainly because we have been round and round this (and Ps138:1) to death on the Christadelphians' Bible truth discussion forum, and even when there's no great doctrinal vested interest in any particular reading, a lot of people would take Heb2:7 as approving the LXX rendering "angels". And that's okay.
I still think though that Christ's "your law ... ye are gods" contains a hint of the irony that is present in the original Psalm. Particularly as the Pharisees, apparently (from memory), did at this period probably interpret the Exodus "before God" as "before the judges"
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | TBax:
The truth in God's word that cannot be nullified. |
That is a solid truth. It's this truth that Jesus used to press the Jews who wanted to stone Him.
| Quote: | Dust wrote:
Do you believe the court in Ps 82 (correction made) are the Jews who were at Sinai? As I have indicated, I don't. |
| Quote: | TBax reply:
Obviously not. |
Good. The Jews believe(d) it though, it is part of the Jewish Torah...i.e....their law, which is in addition to the biblical Laws written in the old testament.
Is Ps 82 part of the Law that is outlined in the Bible?
As it is you and I know, and Jesus knew, the court assembled in Ps 82 was not the Jews, but the Jews who wished to stone Jesus didn't know it. They believed otherwise.
If the court in Ps 82 was not the Jews, as you and I have agreed ,then why does Jesus indicate that they (the Jews who wanted to stone Him) are called gods? It's becasue the Jews in their extra-biblical law, believe that God is addressing them in Ps 82. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy Steven,
Dunn's 'Christology? I'll have to look that one up.
Ok as far as a 1st age and/or a 2nd age is concerned, I can see that you have made it a priority of yours. That's fine, but it's a greater priority of the Bible to understand that God is ONE. So understanding that the Logos is one...is fundamental.....And not only understanding that the Logos is one, but that God and the Logos are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust | Dust wrote: | | Dunn's 'Christology? I'll have to look that one up. |
James G. Dunn, professor at Durham, Anglican but pretty popular among Unitarians and Christadelphians. Looks like you'd agree with some of it but not all.
| Quote: | | Ok as far as a 1st age and/or a 2nd age is concerned, I can see that you have made it a priority of yours. That's fine, but it's a greater priority of the Bible to understand that God is ONE. So understanding that the Logos is one...is fundamental.....And not only understanding that the Logos is one, but that God and the Logos are one. |
Well, and you think that's not justifiable? With respect I honestly believe that awareness of the difference between the 1st creation (not "age", because the 1st creation is still with us), and the new creation) is more fundamental than "Logos".
What is "Logos" anyway? It's only one part of the whole elephant of creation vocabulary along with "all things" "spirit/breath" "made" and so on. The actual word "Word/Logos" doesn't even appear in the Gen1 text, it only appears clearly in relation to Gen1 in Ps33:6. And how can someone who doesn't know that "Logos" is only a part of that picture make anything of that on its own? If they've no OT context they'll end up looking for a "Logos" in Plato and Aristotle...
We've seen where that leads.
This is a broad brush generalization of course, but for some, perhaps many, Christians the idea that "God and the Logos are one" has more to do with a hope that the physical reality around us is not real (Christ only appeared to be born, only appeared to be dead, only appeared to be raised... therefore this world is all smoke, mirrors and trapdoors) than it has to do with the concept of "Logos" as John or Paul have left us in the NT text.
God bless
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1942
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steven3,
Hi,
DIEMARTURATO = THRU-witnesses or certified.
| Steven wrote: | | then I realised that the author of Hebrews wasn't as totally thrilled by the LXX rendering as the Victorians were. |
Sir, you are allowing your opinion to color scripture. God allowed the rendering to be included in His scripture.
| Steven wrote: | | a lot of people would take Heb2:7 as approving the LXX rendering "angels". |
Including Paul as well as God who inspired this.
| Steven wrote: | | I still think though that Christ's "your law ... ye are gods" contains a hint of the irony that is present in the original Psalm. |
Again, sir, your opinion is altering scripture.
Prov 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. 6 In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.
You think He does this through irony?
| Steven wrote: | | Particularly as the Pharisees, apparently (from memory), did at this period probably interpret the Exodus "before God" as "before the judges" |
Doesn't matter. The Psalm shows these judges were mortal men that died. Jesus brought this fact out as well.
Take care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
