Evidence for “a god” at John 10:33

[Soapy]

@Soapy, you bring out some interesting points.
It’s similar to what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. (Some of it.)

Have you studied the Bible w/ JW’s before?

If not, from where did you gain your beliefs?

JW.org.

We use the New World Translation, found on the website.

Hockeycowboy, I gain my belief from the Holy Spirit of the Father and studied upon in Scriptures.

I am bewildered by the argument going on here about whether ‘God’, ‘The God’, or ‘A God’ ... what do you guys not see that you need to check that the word and term ‘God’...IS A TITLE... When you do that then all things will fall into place.

A TITLE can APPLY TO MANY ENTITIES ... but all IN CONTEXT.

It is like all things and words... A MONARCH, THE MONARCH, or just MONARCH.... King, the King, A King...

There are MANY Monarchs, Kings, Lords, Masters, GODS...

What is the DEFINITION of each...!!! Look to that... Look to the CONTEXT!!!

1. “A Judge is GOD in his courtroom. He RULES his court... Lawmaking... bringing judgement upon the people for good or bad”
2. “Achilles and his Myrmidons were GODS among the Greek armies - they were HEROES... MIGHTY men...MAJESTIC warriors” (Mythology of course but the illustration is valid)
   
3. “A Husband is GOD in his household.. he judges among his children, he has the final say concerning his family, he unleashes punishment and establishes praises”
4. “The word was GOD” (Heroic, Mighty, Majestic, Judging, Lawmaking)

What WAS the ‘word’ of YHWH, OUR GOD?
It was A PROMISE!!! A promise of SALVATION. Isaiah 42:1 states that WORD!
And, in the fullness of time OUR GOD (YHWH, the mighty, the majestic, the lawmaker, the hero, ...) PUT FLESH ON THE BONES OF HIS PROMISE.. and sent forth THE SAVIOUR that he spoke of in HIS WORD “Behold my Servant”... and suddenly the WORD OF GOD was WITH US (Immanuel).

You must understand the context and the definition:

1. “He judges among the Mighty”
2. “He is GOD among the Gods”

And:

1. “I say ye are Gods”
2. “I say ye are MIGHTY, Ye are Heroes... Majestic in your ways”

And:

1. “I am [the] GOD over all whom are called [a] GOD”
2. I am [the] MOST HEROIC over all who are called [a] HERO”

GIVE YOUR GOD HIS NAME: YHWH. It is his name for eternity... He will not change!! He IS... he just IS... Perfection cannot be anything but perfect.. and so his name TRANSLATES as “I Am”... that is to say, he is ‘IMMUTABLE’.
Understand that “I Am” IS NOT A NAME... it is just the MEANING of the name YHWH.

What is the meaning of the NAME, “Joshua”?
if whom we, today, call ‘Jesus’, we’re asked his name, would he say: ‘He Who Saves His People”???
Or would he even say, “I Am”??? The Jews asked him if he was greater than their forefather, Abraham, and Jesus replied, effectively, ‘Yes, I am greater than Abraham.’ AND THAT IS WHY THEY TOOK UP STONES To try to stone him.

People, where is your sense. Jesus DID NOT CLAIM that he was “I Am”... he did not claim that he was “[the] God” nor even “[A] God”. He CLAIMED ONLY that he was “YHWH’s SON”.

IT WAS THE JEWS (or trinity translators.....!!!!) who CLAIMED that Jesus was “Making himself EQUAL TO [the] GOD”...

Read the verse... read the verse... It was a JEWISH CLAIM ... not Jesus’ .. Jesus DENIED he said any such thing... yet you guys barter over foolish wording of Trinitarians and the unbelieving Jews????

Jesus TESTED THEM on the Torah!!! Did ALMIGHTY YHWH not also call men of renown who received his word, ‘Gods’? So then what is the greater thing then if I only said I was the SON OF GOD.... and yet EVEN THE JEWS CLAIMED THAT YHWH (God) was their Father!!!

Do you see the silliness going on? How can the Jews claim that Jesus was blaspheming by claiming “God” as his Father (and thus being EQUAL TO GOD), when the Jews THEMSELVES equally CLAIM GOD IS THEIR FATHER?? And thus......!!!!

Try to find a Jewish claim ANYWHERE that amounts to:

• “Being the Son of Father makes that Son EQUAL to his Father”...

Please. Try . You will not find it!! And so it makes that claim in the verse somewhat SUSPICIOUS (as well as nonsensical!)

But failing that, we also know that:

• “YHWH has sent a spirit of delusion into their hearts such that they will believe the lie!”

...

 

[YoursTrue]

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Christians removed Arius from among them because he rejected the truth; "Jesus is God"!
Thomas worships Jesus: his GOD! Jesus tells us.. "Christians that believe and do not see me as you (Thomas) will be blessed! Jesus did not say... "I am NOT God" he congratulates Thomas!

Not everyone believes that Jesus is equal without beginning to two other, yes other, persons who were always there. Arius was not right about everything. No human is. Jesus never made a mistake which is why God offers everlasting life by means of his sacrifice. Odd don't you think that only Thomas, called the doubting one, exclaimed My God when he saw Jesus resurrected. And Jesus is a God. But he is not part of a trinity of three equal godpersons. Meantime Jesus was given power and authority.

 

[Clear]

1) THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT CREATED A CHURCH THAT WAS DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER THAN THE ORIGINAL CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST

Clear claimed that the Roman Christian religious movement of later centuries was NOT the same organisation as the original Church of Jesus Christ.
Dogknox20 replied "YES The Holy Church grew in wealth and understanding... " (post #380)

You missed the point. The original congregations that belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ did NOT grow in wealth by the theft of personal property as the roman movement did. The original congregations of Jesus’ church did NOT oppress the population as the roman movement did. The original congregations of Jesus’ church did NOT grow in wealth by creating fines for disobeying it’s rules as the roman movement did. The congregations of the original Church of Jesus Christ did NOT create rules which were intended to systematize larceny and oppression as the roman congregation later came to do.

The Roman religious movement came to engage in the actual business of gain of wealth rather than having the gospel as a priority.

For example, Canon 32 of Epaon (517 a.d.) is a rule saying “Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free.”
The original Church of Jesus Christ did not place individuals into slavery of the Church. One notes that the canons of this roman religious movement increasingly favor the accumulation of money, property and use of slavery and individuals for the accumulation of power and wealth.

The roman Canon 13 of Reims (624-625 a.d.) stipulates that “No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.” Such rules ensured that the roman church would only continue to gain property and financial value but it could never decrease it’s holdings.

In fact, the roman religious movement created rules that ensured the influx of slaves from it’s own population. For example,

Canon 6 of Toledo (656 a.d.) stipulates that “Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.” The concept that a 10 year old (plus one day) could make life-long decisions in an informed manner such as to become a slave (especially under influence from church hierachy), who, later, deciding that childhood choice was not what they wanted but are indentured for life, was not a concept used in the authentic early Christian congregations.

Even IF a bishop released this young person from his indentured status, the child could not be free of the possibility of having to return to church service against their will.

The canon 67 of Toledo, (633 a.d.) ensures this by stipulating that “Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.” Again, the concept that the church could convert the lives of individuals to their own wealth was a concept foreign to the early gospel.

Even the process of freeing a slave involved increasing the actual number of slaves indentured to this early religious organization. For example, Canon 68 stipulates that “A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave”


The punishments for individuals, increasingly became oriented towards monetary fines or slavery to the church.
Canon 21 of Paderborn (785 a.d.) stipulates “anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.”

Canon 23 stipulates that “Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.”.

Such rules are NOT the rules used in the Gospel nor in the authentic early Congregations of Jesus Christ.
This roman religious movement not only oppressed it’s own members and others, but specifically oppressed the Jews as well. For example,

Canon 8 of Toledo (694 a.d.) stipulates that “Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians. “.

Canon of Lateran IV (1215 a.d) stipulates “All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church”.

The built in motives to find and condemn “heretics” led to chaotic claims of heresy by just about every one who had a grudge against another person. The abuse of such church laws was terrible. And the willingness of the church heirachy to condemn for heresy was enhance by the increasing wealth such actions brought to them as an organization and personally.

For example, once the roman religious movement achieved wealth by such oppression and larceny, it’s officers immediately started abusing the wealth and stealing from the very organization they were to watch over and the wealth that was to be used to benefit the very members they oppressed. Multiple Canons appeared to combat this theft by church officers. For example,

Canon 16, in response to graft and theft by Bishops themselves, stipulated that “Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use. “

The point is, that this type of “mafia-like” organization that the roman religious movement had created was NOT the same organization created by Jesus.
The base motives and actions which characterize these two organisation's are quite different. And, as you say, the roman organization became wealthy and powerful. BUT, the MEANS by which this organization gained political power and wealth and military might did NOT reflect the same goals and means of the early and original and authentic congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ.



2) THE TYPE OF "BISHOP" CREATED BY THE ROMAN RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT WAS NOT THE SAME AS AN AUTHENTIC BISHOP IN THE EARLY CHURCH OF JESUS

Clear claims... the Catholic Church created an office called a “bishop”, BUT, THAT organizations' bishops were not the same office that existed at the head of the original congregations.
Dogknox20 claimed: You are WRONG the bible uses the word Bishop KJV Acts 1:20

Yes, the New Testament uses the word “Bishop”. That was never the point.

The point is that the roman congregation created an office called “Bishop”, but it was NOT the same office as existed in the authentic and original congregations of the Church of Jesus. The Roman religious movement created an official who was called by the same name, but their “bishop” did NOT have the same characteristics as the Bishop of the early congregations.


For example,

The authentic original Bishops were local officers of a local congregation.
The bishop of Jerusalem. The Bishop of Antioch. The Bishop of Rome. They were a local and not a general authority like the romans had created.

They were originally a group of equals. The office of “arch-Bishop”, (an office created by the roman religious movement) did not exist.

The authentic and original Bishops were ordained by apostles they did not “ordain themselves” (i.e. another bishop did not ordain a bishop, but a higher authority of the apostleship ordained authentic bishops).

The authentic Bishops were ordained based on personal characteristics. The type of “Bishop” the roman religious movement created was one based on a hierarchy based in most cases on politics and monetary considerations. For example,

Canon 9 (Antioch) stipulates that “the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the entire province because all those who have any business come together from all directions in the metropolis; therefore, it was decided that he should accordingly be afforded a superior honor and that the other bishops should undertake nothing further without him.. .”

The Authentic and original Bishops were given authority by apostles. The bishops created by the Roman religious movement did not have any apostle level priesthood authority.

For example, the later roman organization came to claim that the apostle Peter gave to an obscure man, Linus, the authority over all other apostles even ones who may have been alive. While historians realized that this was a ‘back claim”, made years later and never actually happened historically, the roman movement perpetuated this claim. In reality the roman movement was never historically, given any apostolic level authority by Peter. Historically, the apostle Peter was never a standing bishop of the Roman congregation, but instead, was engaged in and continued his apostolic duties.

Your list of "Bishops" that shows Peter as a standing Bishop of Rome is, historically, incorrect. It was good advertisement, but historically, we have no period appropriate evidence that it ever happened.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good Dogknox20.

Clear
σισετωδρω

 

[YoursTrue]

REGARDING THE WORD ELOHIM AND IT'S ASSOCIATED MEANING OF "GOD" OR "GODS".


Yourstrue said : “Hello Clear. Elohim is plural. It can mean gods or God or judges…” (Post #350)
Clear said : “I cannot tell if you are theorizing that Elohim actually simply means "judges" or, as I suggest, it does not lose it base meaning, but instead applies some Godlike characteristic to the person to who the name "God" or adjective "Godlike" is applied as the several examples in early sacred literature demonstrated in the post above. (post #352)
For example, can you give us the example where simple Judges are called "Elohim" and we can discuss the reference and see if the base meaning of "God" or "elohim" actually changes to mean "judges" or if the judges are seen has having some Godlike characteristic.”
Yourstrue said : “Please look at Psalm 8:5 and tell me what you see as that which is sometimes translated as angels. I will wait for your answer as to which word is often translated as angels.” (post #354)


TRANSLATION OF A WORD VERSUS REPLACEMENT OF A WORD

In the LXX of 300 b.c. the Greek word αγγελους (gk “angels”) is and has been translated as “angels”.

In the Masoretic of medieval age, the same verse reads “…you have appointed him [to be] a little lower than the gods…” אלה'מ / Elohim (heb “gods”). While I have never seen this properly TRANSLATED as “angels”, I have seen many bibles that have REPLACED the word Angels for the word God. I suspect you have also never seen Elohim properly translated as “angels”. Replacement is different than translation.

Historians have long debated why the Masoretes of the middle ages used Elohim or “Gods” in this verse rather than using Malakim or “angels” as the earlier Jews of 300 b.c. did when making the Septuagint translation if they meant "angels" instead of "gods". Was it a mistake carried over from another version of the text or was it a reading of a theology into the text as often happens? The Masoretes were usually quite rigid in the type of changes they made to the original text (as they tell us in the Massorah) and so it would make MORE sense if they had used the word for angels, instead of the word for Gods (and which was used in their translation of 300 b.c.).

My point is not which is correct, nor is it a theological point. I am making a specific a point of translation and meaning of this word elohim in the ancient literature. If elohim is applied to another being, it is because that being has some characteristic of a God (elohim). The words'use as an adjective is not divorced from its base meaning.

In any case, and for whatever reason, angels replaced gods in many versions, many other versions based on the masoreric kept the correct translations of "gods” instead of replacing the text with “angels”.

However, none of this has anything to do with your claim that Elohim can mean “judges” without reference to a godly characteristic.

I asked for an example verse so we can discuss it. Can you provide one so we can discuss it. I remain convinced that the word “elohim” cannot be divorced from it’s base meaning of God or Gods and that when the word is applied to any other being, then it refers to the other being as having some characteristic of Elohim as I showed in examples from the dead sea scroll literature and from early Christian literature in post #349.


Do you have any verse where Elohim simply means “judges” that you want to discuss?

Clear
σιτωφισεω

On the other hand, manoah and his wife thought they saw God but it was revealed they really saw an angel.

 

[Left Coast]

***THREAD CLOSED***

 

[Polymath257]

*** Thread Locked For Moderator Review ****