How the New Word Translation Contradicts Itself: The Word was a god

[amigo de christo]

I have given you power to cast out demons and etc
But REJOICE NOT IN THIS , but rather in that your names are simply wrote above .
GOD gave satan many gifts but the gifts and the power became his center .
PRIDE is a killer and will destroy all who follow that path .
Rather focus on the ONE WHO GIVETH LIFE and gifts unto men and simply be thankful
for what HE DID so as we would have eternal life . Watch out , for many decievers abound
and have put the love and focus on humanity and creation and not rather the CREATOR .

 

[robert derrick]

BINGO! Guess who can have a field day with that license...? Doctrine will dictate translation more so than grammar. YEP.

You fail to see the point made. I'll try once more: The original koine written by the apostles was all capital letters. Therefore to translate one word or another in the modern fashion with a capital or lower case letter, especially when speaking of God, or god, it must be a doctrinal statement by the translator.

The reason there are translations of the Word was God, and the word was a god, is doctrinal in nature, because there can be no grammatical argument for an upper case God and lower case god, since there was no such case difference in the koine written with.

To be grammatically consistent, there can only be GOD and GOD, God and God, or god and god.

Neither the ancient Greeks nor the apostles writing to them, would have thought to identify the difference between God and god, by case alone.

This simply means that any argument about John 1:1, with different cases must be proven true doctrinally for other Scripture, since it cannot be justified grammatically from all caps koine Greek.

And translations of Scripture with god or gods elsewhere, shows that it's use in John 1:1, makes that word and god a false one that is not true.

Conclusion: I don't believe Jesus Christ is Lord and God, just because the King James translators says, but because all Scripture proves that must be the case, else we are believing in a false christ, that is a false god made of men.

Lucifer is that false christ and god of this world, even as he lusted to be, when he first sinned against the true God:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Those believing in a christ god, are believing in Lucifer and devils, that they say are indeed gods:

They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

Any and all gods other than the one true God and Lord Jesus Christ, are false gods and devils.

They are gods, because angels and men have made themselves such, and being eternal beings, they are the gods and devils cast into the lake of fire and torment forever, except the men repent before their mortal bodies go to the grave. Angels are given no such repentance.

Are you seeing what I am seeing? There are other "gods" mentioned there and it is Yahweh himself who is calling the judges in Israel (who represented him) "gods".

Once again, no one is denying the doctrinal translation of God vs god from Scripture, but only that the doctrine of Christ in all Scripture teaches there is only one true God, and all other such gods are false gods made of themselves, whether angels or men.

I have also shown where Scripture calls such men as gods, not as an honor, but as a condemnation of their rebellion against Him like that of Lucifer and the angels.

When the LORD and Jesus call any men gods, it is to rebuke them. And the times He does so, Scripture shows it is always the disobedient and unbelieving He is speaking to, not to the faithful saints of old and new.

This is the second time I've offered this. If you want to respond to it, I'll be glad to see it.

 

[Angel Faith]

Indeed. Angels compromise the Heavenly Council don’t they?

Does that make them god's? God took council with Lucifer concerning Job's Faith. Lucifer is an angel not a god.

 

[Angel Faith]

According to Strongs Concordance, the plural 'ĕlōhîm means.....

1. rulers, judges
2. divine ones
3. angels
4. gods

So angels are called "gods" ('ĕlōhîm Hebrew, theos Greek) in scripture as are human judges in Israel, as God's representatives. (John 10:31-36)
"Theos" (Greek) is not a word used in the NT just for Yahweh. It can mean any divine, or divinely authorized personage.

Eloah- God, god. Strong's Hebrew: 430. אֱלֹהִים (elohim) -- God, god
https://www.biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm

 

[Wrangler]

Quit simply God spoke and He is what He spoke.

That’s not simple at all but figurative. You are confounding the effect with cause. The cause is the WHO, the Being who spoke. The effect are the WHAT, the words the Being spoke.

To say they are the same is figurative. The same with, you are what you eat or do.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Neither the ancient Greeks nor the apostles writing to them, would have thought to identify the difference between God and god, by case alone.

This simply means that any argument about John 1:1, with different cases must be proven true doctrinally for other Scripture, since it cannot be justified grammatically from all caps koine Greek.

The explanation provided has nothing to do with doctrine, and the Koine Greek did indeed make a distinct differentiation between Yahweh and his son by the inclusion of the definite article. That is how you can make Yahweh, “God” and Jesus, “a god” or divine personage who was authorised by God to act as his representative.

Here is what you completely ignored.....

Can we see what the Greek says then? Leaving doctrine aside, what does the Greek actually say?

"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (MOUNCE INTERLINEAR)

If the readers look closely at that little word "ho"....it means "the" and it was used to identify Yahweh when the Jews had ceased using the divine name. We use it in the same sense when we want to identify someone who might have the same name as someone famous.
If for example, you read on an invitation to a lecture that Brad Pitt was the speaker, wouldn't you ask...."is that THE Brad Pitt?"
"THE God" is "HO THEOS" whereas ho logos was "WITH" "HO THEOS"......he wasn't" ho theos" but simply THEOS.
How is that word used in other scripture?
Jesus' own statement to the Jews who were accusing him of blasphemy indicated that even humans are called "theos" (gods).....look again for that little word 'ho", and see who was "HO THEOS" (the God) and who was just "THEOS" (a god) a divine mighty one....

"The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’? (John 10:31-36)

Are you seeing what I am seeing? There are few scriptures that demonstrate the use of the definite article more clearly than this one. We can see that other "gods" are mentioned there, and it is Yahweh himself who is calling the judges in Israel (who represented him) "gods".

The Jews were never accusing Jesus of being “ho theos” but making himself “theos”....”a god” by calling Yahweh his Father. (John 5:16-20)

See that when the Father and son are mentioned in the same passage of scripture, there is a clear difference between them with the use of the definite article. Only Yahweh is called "ho theos" (THE God) whilst Jesus is referred to by the word without the definite article in keeping with the way Strongs defines the meaning of "theos”.

Can you give me an excuse as to why that little word, which changes the whole meaning of John 1:1 (and John 10:31-36) was deliberately left out in the English translation? "Doctrine"...that's exactly what swayed the translators. But we can see that it isn't what the Bible says in Greek.

Strongs primary definition of "theos" is...
"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities".....so you do not have a Greek leg to stand on in this argument.....the NWT renders it correctly. Jesus is never once called "ho theos".

Once again, no one is denying the doctrinal translation of God vs god from Scripture, but only that the doctrine of Christ in all Scripture teaches there is only one true God, and all other such gods are false gods made of themselves, whether angels or men.

What did Jesus himself say?

John 17:3....KJV...
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Here is Jesus in prayer to his God, saying that his Father is “the only true God” without including himself, and with no mention of the Holy Spirit as necessary for eternal life.....
It was his God who sent him to redeem mankind because an immortal God cannot die.

Who did the apostles believe was their “one God”?

1 Corinthians 8:5-6....KJV...
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Paul is writing about the collective belief of all the apostles. They had “one God” who was Yahweh.....and “one Lord Jesus Christ”. Calling Jesus their “Lord” never made him their God.

You see that when evidence is provided, it is either ignored or dismissed.

 

[DJT_47]

Not so. Look at the interlinear. It DOESN'T say "a god" but rather God was the word.

2316 [e] Theos Θεὸς God N-NMS​

1510 [e] ēn ἦν was V-IIA-3S​

3588 [e] ho ὁ the Art-NMS​

3056 [e] Logos Λόγος . Word​

 

[Aunty Jane]

Not so. Look at the interlinear. It DOESN'T say "a god" but rather God was the word.

2316 [e] Theos Θεὸς God N-NMS​

1510 [e] ēn ἦν was V-IIA-3S​

3588 [e] ho ὁ the Art-NMS​

3056 [e] Logos Λόγος . Word​

The use of the definite article identifies God (Yahweh) from those who are called “gods” without the definite article. The word “theos” does not identify only Yahweh. Calling Jesus “theos” simply identifies him as a divine representative of his Father....as were the angels and human judges in Israel who acted in that capacity when they worked as God’s representatives.

Satan is called “theos” because he is “the god of this world”.....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

 

[Wrangler]

Here is what you completely ignored..... Leaving doctrine aside, what does the Greek actually say?

What is ignored is leaving doctrine aside.

You are talking to people totally succumb to their IDOLATRY; there is no putting it aside. You are speaking a language they don't understand, a language independent of doctrine.

 

[DJT_47]

The use of the definite article identifies God (Yahweh) from those who are called “gods” without the definite article. The word “theos” does not identify only Yahweh. Calling Jesus “theos” simply identifies him as a divine representative of his Father....as were the angels and human judges in Israel who acted in that capacity when they worked as God’s representatives.

Satan is called “theos” because he is “the god of this world”.....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

You said "a god": "a" and small "g". I responded as per the interlinear which doesn't use "a" nor a small "g". What's your point?

 

[Aunty Jane]

What is ignored is leaving doctrine aside.

You are talking to people totally succumb to their IDOLATRY; there is no putting it aside. You are speaking a language they don't understand, a language independent of doctrine.

Apparently..... all scriptural evidence just goes right by them.....

 

[Aunty Jane]

You said "a god": "a" and small "g". I responded as per the interlinear which doesn't use "a" nor a small "g". What's your point?

Oh dear.....definite article mate.....read it all again. Post #66 explains what that means......

 

[Aunty Jane]

John 1:1 in the Kingdom Interlinear...
"In ἀρχῇ beginning ἦν was ὁ the λόγος, Word, καὶ and ὁ the λόγος Word ἦν was πρὸς toward τὸν the θεόν, God, καὶ and θεὸς god ἦν was ὁ the λόγος."

Mounce is easier to demonstrate, but you can see the definite article in the first reference to "θεόν"(God)....the definite article "τὸν θεόν"....if you use Google Translate and translate that to English it says "THE GOD".....whereas the second reference to "θεὸς" is minus the definite article, meaning that "τὸν θεόν" is Yahweh and "θεόν" is not.

Do you see....? "θεὸς" was "the Word".....not "τὸν θεόν".
It was "the Word" who became flesh....NOT "THE GOD".

 

[robert derrick]

Agreed. Self-deception is the hardest to overcome.


Not sure how you make that connection. Putting aside Jesus for a moment, don't you agree that everything from God has authority, be it his literal words or a messenger he sends on his behalf?

It seems to me that you are so devout to your idolatry that you deny the clear principle of agency in Scripture. You may recall a couple of years ago there was a thread that took a deep dive into who was talking to Moses at the burning bush and who destroyed Sodom and Gomorra? There are verses that support both angels and God. So, how is this reconciled?

One option is to conclude that angels are also God. Another option, which I believe is the correct interpretation is agency. Agents of God act with his authority. It does not make them God.

The same thing with God's literal words. It has a authority, which by definition, makes it a god. But that does not make the literal words God spoke to be YHWH himself. Moreover, it does not make those who say God's word to be YHWH themselves. That's just crazy talk!

What do you make of Acts 2:36, God made Jesus both Lord and Messiah? Why would such verses exist in Scripture if your take on this were correct? I submit they would not exist and therefore, your take is incorrect.

The explanation provided has nothing to do with doctrine, and the Koine Greek did indeed make a distinct differentiation between Yahweh and his son by the inclusion of the definite article. That is how you can make Yahweh, “God” and Jesus, “a god” or divine personage who was authorised by God to act as his representative.

Here is what you completely ignored.....

Can we see what the Greek says then? Leaving doctrine aside, what does the Greek actually say?

"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (MOUNCE INTERLINEAR)

If the readers look closely at that little word "ho"....it means "the" and it was used to identify Yahweh when the Jews had ceased using the divine name. We use it in the same sense when we want to identify someone who might have the same name as someone famous.
If for example, you read on an invitation to a lecture that Brad Pitt was the speaker, wouldn't you ask...."is that THE Brad Pitt?"
"THE God" is "HO THEOS" whereas ho logos was "WITH" "HO THEOS"......he wasn't" ho theos" but simply THEOS.
How is that word used in other scripture?
Jesus' own statement to the Jews who were accusing him of blasphemy indicated that even humans are called "theos" (gods).....look again for that little word 'ho", and see who was "HO THEOS" (the God) and who was just "THEOS" (a god) a divine mighty one....

"The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’? (John 10:31-36)

Are you seeing what I am seeing? There are few scriptures that demonstrate the use of the definite article more clearly than this one. We can see that other "gods" are mentioned there, and it is Yahweh himself who is calling the judges in Israel (who represented him) "gods".

The Jews were never accusing Jesus of being “ho theos” but making himself “theos”....”a god” by calling Yahweh his Father. (John 5:16-20)

See that when the Father and son are mentioned in the same passage of scripture, there is a clear difference between them with the use of the definite article. Only Yahweh is called "ho theos" (THE God) whilst Jesus is referred to by the word without the definite article in keeping with the way Strongs defines the meaning of "theos”.

Can you give me an excuse as to why that little word, which changes the whole meaning of John 1:1 (and John 10:31-36) was deliberately left out in the English translation? "Doctrine"...that's exactly what swayed the translators. But we can see that it isn't what the Bible says in Greek.

Strongs primary definition of "theos" is...
"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities".....so you do not have a Greek leg to stand on in this argument.....the NWT renders it correctly. Jesus is never once called "ho theos".


What did Jesus himself say?

John 17:3....KJV...
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Here is Jesus in prayer to his God, saying that his Father is “the only true God” without including himself, and with no mention of the Holy Spirit as necessary for eternal life.....
It was his God who sent him to redeem mankind because an immortal God cannot die.

Who did the apostles believe was their “one God”?

1 Corinthians 8:5-6....KJV...
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Paul is writing about the collective belief of all the apostles. They had “one God” who was Yahweh.....and “one Lord Jesus Christ”. Calling Jesus their “Lord” never made him their God.

You see that when evidence is provided, it is either ignored or dismissed.

You ignore the argument: the koine was all caps, and any argument about God or god, must be doctrinal, not just grammatical.

Any strict translation would be all caps, making no difference between lowercase letters that did not exist.

If there is a difference between THE GOD, and GOD, then it must be doctrinally made.

 

[robert derrick]

The explanation provided has nothing to do with doctrine, and the Koine Greek did indeed make a distinct differentiation between Yahweh and his son by the inclusion of the definite article. That is how you can make Yahweh, “God” and Jesus, “a god” or divine personage who was authorised by God to act as his representative.

Here is what you completely ignored.....

Can we see what the Greek says then? Leaving doctrine aside, what does the Greek actually say?

"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (MOUNCE INTERLINEAR)

If the readers look closely at that little word "ho"....it means "the" and it was used to identify Yahweh when the Jews had ceased using the divine name. We use it in the same sense when we want to identify someone who might have the same name as someone famous.
If for example, you read on an invitation to a lecture that Brad Pitt was the speaker, wouldn't you ask...."is that THE Brad Pitt?"
"THE God" is "HO THEOS" whereas ho logos was "WITH" "HO THEOS"......he wasn't" ho theos" but simply THEOS.
How is that word used in other scripture?
Jesus' own statement to the Jews who were accusing him of blasphemy indicated that even humans are called "theos" (gods).....look again for that little word 'ho", and see who was "HO THEOS" (the God) and who was just "THEOS" (a god) a divine mighty one....

"The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’? (John 10:31-36)

Are you seeing what I am seeing? There are few scriptures that demonstrate the use of the definite article more clearly than this one. We can see that other "gods" are mentioned there, and it is Yahweh himself who is calling the judges in Israel (who represented him) "gods".

The Jews were never accusing Jesus of being “ho theos” but making himself “theos”....”a god” by calling Yahweh his Father. (John 5:16-20)

See that when the Father and son are mentioned in the same passage of scripture, there is a clear difference between them with the use of the definite article. Only Yahweh is called "ho theos" (THE God) whilst Jesus is referred to by the word without the definite article in keeping with the way Strongs defines the meaning of "theos”.

Can you give me an excuse as to why that little word, which changes the whole meaning of John 1:1 (and John 10:31-36) was deliberately left out in the English translation? "Doctrine"...that's exactly what swayed the translators. But we can see that it isn't what the Bible says in Greek.

Strongs primary definition of "theos" is...
"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities".....so you do not have a Greek leg to stand on in this argument.....the NWT renders it correctly. Jesus is never once called "ho theos".


What did Jesus himself say?

John 17:3....KJV...
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Here is Jesus in prayer to his God, saying that his Father is “the only true God” without including himself, and with no mention of the Holy Spirit as necessary for eternal life.....
It was his God who sent him to redeem mankind because an immortal God cannot die.

Who did the apostles believe was their “one God”?

1 Corinthians 8:5-6....KJV...
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Paul is writing about the collective belief of all the apostles. They had “one God” who was Yahweh.....and “one Lord Jesus Christ”. Calling Jesus their “Lord” never made him their God.

You see that when evidence is provided, it is either ignored or dismissed.

You've avoided the doctrinal argument made: if your christ is a god, then your translations made him a false god, just like any and all gods that are not gods.

I've provided the Scriptures and reasonings twice already. That's enough. If you want to respond specifically to them, I'll be glad to see it.

 

[Angel Faith]

The use of the definite article identifies God (Yahweh) from those who are called “gods” without the definite article. The word “theos” does not identify only Yahweh. Calling Jesus “theos” simply identifies him as a divine representative of his Father....as were the angels and human judges in Israel who acted in that capacity when they worked as God’s representatives.

Satan is called “theos” because he is “the god of this world”.....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

What the Bible says about Theos

Theos and Kurios: Do we find the authors of the New Testament books following the same principle of fear and reverence toward the names of God as Old …

www.bibletools.org

2 Corinthians 4:4

A significant difficulty with interpreting II Corinthians 4:4 to be about Satan is that he is nowhere said to be the god of anything. Many proponents of his being “the god of this world” say that the world's people have him as their object of worship. It is a true statement, but the verse is not saying that.


The word for “God,” theos, is used in a general sense in just a few places, such as Paul's description in Philippians 3:19 of people who set their minds on earthly things—he says their “god is their belly,” an abstract and rare usage of theos. But II Corinthians 4:4 is not abstract; it speaks of someone specific rather than a general concept.


In addition, the verse refers to “this age” (emphasis ours throughout) rather than “this world.” The word here is aion, which refers to a span of time. A search about how the Bible's writers use aion clarifies who is God in—and thus of—every age. Hebrews 1:1-2 is a ready example:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds . . ..

At the end of verse 2, “worlds” translates aion, which should be rendered as “ages.” God is sovereign over the ages because He created them through His Son. The Faith Chapter begins similarly: “By faith we understand that the worlds [aion] were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). The Word of God framed or prepared the ages. In other words, God is sovereign over the divine timeline; He has not given any part of it to the Adversary.


This aspect of God's sovereignty is critical because of a widely held first-century idea called dualism. Part of dualism is the belief in an ongoing, cosmic struggle between light and darkness, good and evil. In popular application, dualism maintains that God and Satan hold parts of the creation in a rough balance, and they are battling for the souls of humanity. Notice, though, that this puts God and Satan on essentially equal levels, as though Satan is somehow a match for God.


Paul skewers this idea in Ephesians 1:20-21:

. . . which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

The apostle claims that Jesus Christ is “far above” everything “in this age” [aion]. He is above every principality and power, which includes all the angels, even the rebellious ones like Satan. He is not only preeminent in this age but also in the next. In other words, Christ is the God of this age, just as He is the God of the next age—only the Father is higher. Similarly, when writing to Timothy, Paul refers to God as “the King eternal” (I Timothy 1:17). This Greek phrase, tō basilei tōn aiōnōn, is literally “the King of the ages.”


Are both Christ and Satan “God/god of this age”? Certainly not! Even though Jesus allows Satan to rule, He also limits him, and the Devil must seek permission to do things such as afflict Job and sift Peter. Jesus possesses “all authority,” in both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18-20). Many may inadvertently worship Satan, and a few deliberately deify him, but he is not the deity of this or any age. Neither God nor His servants give him that honor or designation.''

David C. Grabbe

 

[robert derrick]

What the Bible says about Theos

Theos and Kurios: Do we find the authors of the New Testament books following the same principle of fear and reverence toward the names of God as Old …

www.bibletools.org

2 Corinthians 4:4

A significant difficulty with interpreting II Corinthians 4:4 to be about Satan is that he is nowhere said to be the god of anything. Many proponents of his being “the god of this world” say that the world's people have him as their object of worship. It is a true statement, but the verse is not saying that.


The word for “God,” theos, is used in a general sense in just a few places, such as Paul's description in Philippians 3:19 of people who set their minds on earthly things—he says their “god is their belly,” an abstract and rare usage of theos. But II Corinthians 4:4 is not abstract; it speaks of someone specific rather than a general concept.


In addition, the verse refers to “this age” (emphasis ours throughout) rather than “this world.” The word here is aion, which refers to a span of time. A search about how the Bible's writers use aion clarifies who is God in—and thus of—every age. Hebrews 1:1-2 is a ready example:




At the end of verse 2, “worlds” translates aion, which should be rendered as “ages.” God is sovereign over the ages because He created them through His Son. The Faith Chapter begins similarly: “By faith we understand that the worlds [aion] were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). The Word of God framed or prepared the ages. In other words, God is sovereign over the divine timeline; He has not given any part of it to the Adversary.


This aspect of God's sovereignty is critical because of a widely held first-century idea called dualism. Part of dualism is the belief in an ongoing, cosmic struggle between light and darkness, good and evil. In popular application, dualism maintains that God and Satan hold parts of the creation in a rough balance, and they are battling for the souls of humanity. Notice, though, that this puts God and Satan on essentially equal levels, as though Satan is somehow a match for God.


Paul skewers this idea in Ephesians 1:20-21:




The apostle claims that Jesus Christ is “far above” everything “in this age” [aion]. He is above every principality and power, which includes all the angels, even the rebellious ones like Satan. He is not only preeminent in this age but also in the next. In other words, Christ is the God of this age, just as He is the God of the next age—only the Father is higher. Similarly, when writing to Timothy, Paul refers to God as “the King eternal” (I Timothy 1:17). This Greek phrase, tō basilei tōn aiōnōn, is literally “the King of the ages.”


Are both Christ and Satan “God/god of this age”? Certainly not! Even though Jesus allows Satan to rule, He also limits him, and the Devil must seek permission to do things such as afflict Job and sift Peter. Jesus possesses “all authority,” in both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18-20). Many may inadvertently worship Satan, and a few deliberately deify him, but he is not the deity of this or any age. Neither God nor His servants give him that honor or designation.''

David C. Grabbe

I like using the word deity. Arguing about god and gods is almost benign, like there is no big deal about angels being as gods, etc...

But when it comes to Deity, there is no Deity other than the true God.

Those angels and men who think they are as gods, would not also go ahead and say they are Deities.

This is how we see they are preaching pagan gods, who all were Deities in their own right. There may have been a king over the gods, but they were all just as much Deity as the King.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You've avoided the doctrinal argument made: if your christ is a god, then your translations made him a false god, just like any and all gods that are not gods.

And you missed the point about what the word "theos" means in the first place.
Strongs primary definition of "theos" is..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities"....so Jesus fits the definition of "a god" as his Father's divine representative. Do you see "deities or divinities".....Jesus was never "deity", but indisputably "divine" in origin.....and by authorization, the one chosen by God to redeem mankind. An immortal God cannot die,

I've provided the Scriptures and reasonings twice already. That's enough. If you want to respond specifically to them, I'll be glad to see it.

You have provided no scripture to back up a thing you've said. Post #66 is the scriptural explanation of why Jesus is NOT said to be "ho theos" in any verse in the whole Bible.

Calling him "theos" does not make him "God" any more than calling him "Lord" does.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A significant difficulty with interpreting II Corinthians 4:4 to be about Satan is that he is nowhere said to be the god of anything. Many proponents of his being “the god of this world” say that the world's people have him as their object of worship. It is a true statement, but the verse is not saying that.

Satan is indeed" a god" of this world (age) because his request by way of a temptation to Jesus was to ask for "one act of worship" in exchange for "all the Kingdoms of the world". They had been "delivered' to him, by their Sovereign ruler.....for a reason. (Luke 4:5-8)

When the devil told Eve in the garden that 'knowing good and evil for themselves would make them "like God"...it was his own ambition to be 'a god' to those humans that prompted him to rebel.
Ezekiel 28:13-17 tells us about his downfall....

"You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:. . . .
prepared for you on the day you were created.

14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you. . . . .

17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you."

Though addressed to the King of Tyre, it is clearly a reference to satan whose personality this King was emulating.

The word for “God,” theos, is used in a general sense in just a few places, such as Paul's description in Philippians 3:19 of people who set their minds on earthly things—he says their “god is their belly,” an abstract and rare usage of theos. But II Corinthians 4:4 is not abstract; it speaks of someone specific rather than a general concept.

I would say figuratively, or representatively. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 is about satan specifically. No one can blind minds like the devil.
The mind is the place where we process all the information that comes through our senses. A blinded mind has shut down all reason.

In addition, the verse refers to “this age” (emphasis ours throughout) rather than “this world.” The word here is aion, which refers to a span of time. A search about how the Bible's writers use aion clarifies who is God in—and thus of—every age. Hebrews 1:1-2 is a ready example:

Strongs defines "aiōn" as.....

1. for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2. the worlds, universe
3. period of time, age

The world has experienced many ages or time periods, but two things remain unchanged throughout man's history after the fall....God and human nature. The devil counts on the fact that he can read us like a book...but he also knows that he and all whom he manages to deceive will face eternal destruction. His aim therefore, is to take as many down with him as he can.

This aspect of God's sovereignty is critical because of a widely held first-century idea called dualism. Part of dualism is the belief in an ongoing, cosmic struggle between light and darkness, good and evil. In popular application, dualism maintains that God and Satan hold parts of the creation in a rough balance, and they are battling for the souls of humanity. Notice, though, that this puts God and Satan on essentially equal levels, as though Satan is somehow a match for God.

It is the Bible itself that supports the conflict between good and evil....though satan is never presented as an equal of his own Creator.
There is no greater power in all existence that Yahweh....."The Most High over all the earth". (Psalm 83:18) But the clever devil did not challenge God's power.....he knew he was no match.....so he challenged his Sovereignty....his right to set reasonable limits to the free will gifted to his children both in heaven and on earth.

God allows the devil to tempt mankind because he is teaching us the value of obedience to his commands...always for our good.
Obedience is all God has ever asked of his children.....the only cause of death in Eden was disobedience.
There are always two options presented to humankind.....life or death.....to be a sheep or a goat.....to be found on the narrow road to life as opposed to the easy road to death. Its always been about our free willed choices.

Paul skewers this idea in Ephesians 1:20-21:

Does he?
Ephesians 1:15-21...(NKJV)
"Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come."

Can you please explain how this passage skewers anything....

Are both Christ and Satan “God/god of this age”? Certainly not! Even though Jesus allows Satan to rule, He also limits him, and the Devil must seek permission to do things such as afflict Job and sift Peter. Jesus possesses “all authority,” in both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18-20). Many may inadvertently worship Satan, and a few deliberately deify him, but he is not the deity of this or any age. Neither God nor His servants give him that honor or designation.''

The earth is in the hands of the devil, (1 John 5:19) given over to him to prove that he is the better ruler over mankind. Since God knows from the beginning how it will all end, (Isaiah 46:10) he can direct matters in every age to make sure that his purpose is fulfilled.
God assures us that in this exercise, we will lose nothing gained if we die before "the end" comes......a resurrection is promised to all who uphold God's Sovereignty and who obey his appointed King. (John 5:28-29)

In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus does not "possess" "all authority " but it is *given* to him by his Father....who is also his God.
It is Jesus who is "given authority" to send satan and his hordes into the abyss for a thousand years, whilst redeemed mankind are brought back into a reconciliation with their Heavenly Father under the rule and guidance of his kingdom.
Revelation 21:2-4 is the fulfillment of the promise to "destroy all the works of the devil". (1 John 3:8)

 

[Wrangler]

Apparently..... all scriptural evidence just goes right by them.....

They don’t have a rejection criteria. Therefore, all evidence - by definition - supports their idol. It’s probably a lack of spiritual maturity and discernment on the part of those who do not understand how the evidence supports their dogma.