You truly are wickedly pathetic. After this refutation I am going to ban you since you are no better than the Muslim apologists I deal with.

I don’t need to show you that God is called a MALAKH in the NT, SINCE THE NT IS WRITTEN IN GREEK, NOT HEBREW, AND MALAKH IS A HEBREW TERM! This again shows you really should not be commenting on the Bible since you are either too ignorant to do so, or wickedly dishonest.

With that said, what word does the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible use when it describes God as a Malakh? You guessed it, ANGELOS, THE VERY WORD USED IN THE GREEK NT TO RENDER THE HEBREW WORD MALAKH! Are you really that dishonest or that ignorant?

Your appeal to Hebrews is going to further embarrass you for two reasons. First, Hebrews is talking about a category of beings that are ontologically angels, meaning, spirit creatures who are by their very nature malakhim/angelois. This is why the angels are distinguished from Christ in Hebrews 1, since Christ is not an angel by nature, but by function, e.g., he functions in the role of an angel even though he is God in essence who then took on the nature of a man.

Second, once again this either shows your ignorance or dishonesty since Hebrews 1:6 quotes from Deuteronomy 32:43 WHERE THE GODS OF THE NATIONS ARE CALLED ANGELOIS! And guess who those gods are per your understanding of Deuteronomy 32:8? You guessed it, NONE OTHER THAN THE SONS OF GOD. This again proves that the term Angelois IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE TERM MALAKHIM, and further proves THAT THE BIBLE NEVER MENTIONS A GROUP OF SPIRIT BEINGS CALLED THE SONS OF GOD THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE MALAKHIM/ANGELOIS, SINCE IT IDENTIFIES THE SONS OF GOD AS THE MALAKHIM/ANGELOIS. Hopefully, by putting this in caps you will finally get it.

And nice diversionary tactic and false analogy. My challenging you to show that the sons of God are different from the angels, or that the term Malakhim is not synonymous with the word Angelois, is not the same as Muslims asking for the word Triniy, since I never asked you to show me where the Bible comes out and says in black and white “Malakhim are not the Angelois,” or “the Sons of God are not Angels.” I am asking for evidence which shows they are not the same. It is the same way that you would prove to me from the Bible that the Trinity is true, not by showing me where the word appears, but by quoting verse after verse where the Bible lays the foundation for what the term implies.

In light of your gross misrepresentation of my arguments, and your inability to deal honestly with the objections, you are no longer free to post comments here. If you do so I will ban you.

LikeLike

Let us give a couple of examples of the difference in usage. As you mentioned God is called a malakh in the OT is he called one in the NT? In fact Hebrews goes out of it’s way to draw a sharp distinction between Aggelos and Jesus. Why? Because the NT term is not synonomous with the OT term.
Aggelos is used to translate Malakhim, elohim, Bene elim etc. in the Septuagint OT so it seems that it can’t be directly synonomous. What do the things translated have in common? they are all divine beings but not necessarily messengers.

Speaking of Muslim tactics where does the word trinity appear in the bible? Lol Where does the bible say these are not Malakhim seriously. I see no reason why one could not act as a messenger and get called a malakhim as i have stated before but you want Malakhim to be a catch all term in the OT and that is an assumption you make with very little evidence.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Nice Muslim tactic in trying to shift the burden proof. You know better than to adopt such a tactic seeing you claim to be a Christian. Therefore, let me help you to remain honest in the way you argue for your case. Since you made the assertion, YOU THEREFORE NEED TO PROVE YOUR POINT. You don’t ask me to refute a claim that you have yet to prove from Scripture.

Therefore, let’s try this one more time. Show me where the Bible differentiates a spirit Son of God FROM a Malakh/Angelos. Stop assuming your position and start proving it. And show me where elohim is a catch all term whereas Malakhim is not. Once again, stop assuming your position and start proving it.

I’m sorry to be so direct, but you again show you have no clue what you are talking about since you again repeat your blunder that the word Angel is a catch all term for good spirit beings, thereby assuming that Angel doesn’t mean the same thing that the Hebrew word Malakh does. But since the word Angel is nothing other than the English translation of Malakh, you just ended up refuting yourself and destroying your entire case, since you just proved that Malakh IS INDEED A CATCH ALL TERM FOR GOOD SPIRIT BEINGS!

This brings me to my next point, one that I had already noted in my previous comment. The NT term Angelos is nothing more than THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE HEBREW WORD MALAKH! What don’t you get?

Finally, in refutation of your straw man, can you show me where I said that the word Malakhim is used in reference to the throne guardians? Did you even read my post? But let me now turn this against you by using your shameful tactic. Where does the Bible claim that the throne guardians ARE NOT MALAKHIM, or where does it say the spiritual rulers ARE NOT MALAKHIM?

However, you just admitted that a cherub and a spirit son of God ARE MALAKHIM by arguing that the word Angelos refers to all good spirit creatures. Seeing that Angelos is nothing more than the Greek rendering of the Hebrew term Malakh, and seeing that the cherub and spirit son of God are spirit creatures, this means you just ended up proving that the throne guardians and these sons of God are in fact Malakhim.

Thank you for refuting yourself and proving my case. Much appreciated.

LikeLike

Let me reverse this. can you show me a text that uses the term Malakh or Malakhim in relation to rulership or throne guardian roles? Or is it only used in conjunction with acting as a messenger? We don’t have to talk as if there is some specific class called Malakhim and that a Cherub or a Son of God cannot act as a messenger however that is not how the NT consistently applies the term. elohim is a catch all term Malakhim is not, it is about message bearing. Angel is both a catch all term for good spirit beings and can speak of acting as a messenger as well. The terms just aren’t apllied in the same ways even though they seem like obvious translations of each other. I dont have A SINGLE PASSAGE to show this similarity, I have ALL the NT references to Aggelos compared to all the NT passages utilizing elohim, they aren’t completely identical Aggelos seems to apply only to all loyal spirit beings and not Yhwh while elohim applies to loyal and disloyal spirit beings and Yhwh. The comparison is that it is a large category of classes contained in one term.

Malakhim is a role and means messenger. Aggelos can mean messenger but often doesn’t.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Your argument is so bad that I had to post it in order to show others just how pathetic some of the counter responses are.

First, this shows you are dishonest. You yourself just stated that the word Malakhim, the plural form of Malakh, is nothing more than the Hebrew equivalent of Angelois, which you keep using in the singular, since both words simply mean messenger. It’s the context that determines whether the messenger is a heavenly being or an earthly one.

Secondly, Malakh can mean any dang thing as well since the term is used in reference to God, humans and spirit beings. This shows that either you are an ignoramus pretending to know what you are talking about or you are wickedly dishonest.

Thirdly, you again are either lying or are simply doing nothing more than exposing your ignorance since there isn’t A SINGLE PASSAGE of Scripture that shows that the term Angelois has more in common with the word elohim rather than Malakhim, especially when Angelois is nothing other than the Greek translation of the word Malakhim. Stop embarrassing yourself this way.

Now here’s my challenge for you. Quote a single verse where the Malakhim are different from the beney elim/elyon/elohim, despite it being used in a broader sense in certain contexts. My challenge is for you to show two distinct groups in heaven, one of whom are identified as the sons of God and the other as the angels or Malakhim. And cite some evidence that the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Malakhim is different and distinct from Angelois, and that these two words are not synonymous in their meanings within the context of the Holy Bible.

In light of your nonsense here, I really am embarrassed for you.

LikeLike

You did this with the Deut 32 article confusing the line between OT and NT angels by using the English text. The Septuagint translates the OT Hebrew which uses a lot of smaller category of terms, Sons of God, Malakhim, gods and often translates them as this broader category (angels). It is confusing because both Malakhim and Aggelos mean messenger but the usages of the term are not precisely equivalent. The term Aggelos has more in common with the term elohim in it’s inclusive character as a category as opposed to Malakhim which refers to either a class of messengers or beings acting explicitly in the role of bearing messages.

LikeLiked by 1 person

I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I don’t doubt the existence of celestial beings, nor do I deny the existence of the heavenly council. Make sure to read all my articles so you get a better idea of what I’m arguing for.

LikeLike

Blessings brother. May God bless your ministry and provide for all your needs according to His riches in glory.

I had one quick comment about your article. Please consider these verses and ask yourself who are the “celestial beings” (NIV) or “glorious ones” (ESV) who are clearly not angels:

2 Peter 2:9-11 NIV
“if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord.”

‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2:9-11‬ ‭ESV
“then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2:9-11‬ ‭ESV

LikeLike

LikeLike