Response >>

More on "False Gods"

: ROBERT: First, do you concede that the contrast in Gal 4:8 is between the True God and gods that are not gods by nature (regardless of your view of the latter), as the WT says?

I re-read that article and still maintain that the word "production" shows that they were idols, not demons. In addition it says they were not "truly" gods, not that they were not the True God. The fact that this is plural both by Paul and the WT seems to mean that we are talking about mighty ones as opposed to vain idols.

: Now, are these gods living? It's not explicitly stated; however, I think Paul implicitly says as much. First of all, if the gods the Galatians were worshipping were not living creatures, they wouldn't have natures, would they? Doesn't having a PHUSIS presuppose a Being?

MS:
James White when addressing the argument that person and being are not distinguished in Scripture says that rocks have being. Trinitarians have a wide range of beliefs, don't they :)

: The WT material I quoted says: "it was impossible for them to come into such status." Now, I must say, I'm impressed by the author of this article, because he clearly understood the import of ME in the Greek. The ME, as I'm sure you're aware, is emphatic, and gives the sense that the gods not only weren't gods by nature NOW, but that they could never be.

MS:
I am familiar with OU MH as emphatic but MH as a negative particle as in "not". Could you provide references?

Robert:
Such a statement would be rather silly if the gods in question weren't living creatures, wouldn't it?

MS:
According to you the contrast it between these and the one true God, right? Is is any easier to comprehend a created demon becoming "God" than for an idol of wood and stone? I don't think so. Each is equally impossible.

Robert:
It would be stating the obvious with a rhetorical cannon, which doesn't seem consistent with Paul's writing at all. It makes sense, though, if Paul is referring to demons. The Chief Demon aspires to God's throne, but Paul is saying that no demon could ever have the nature of God.

MS:
Paul is teaching the utter futility of worshiping idols. They can't help man, even in the short run. Satan offered to give Jesus the world and he refused. There can be short term benefit of a sort given by demons, but idols are completely worthless to anyone.

: Also, we know that Paul considered demons to be standing behind idols that the Corinthians were sacrificing to (1 Cor 10:20-21). The Bible is clear that this demoniac influence is not restricted to Corinth. Most Bibles, including the NWT, reference Deut 32:17 here, and with good reason. In this key convenantal passage, Moses distinguishes Jehovah from demons to whom his wayward people will sacrifice. These demons are called "gods" and "idols" (v 17 & v. 21), and we are told that they are "not God" (v. 21, singular this time, MS!). And what does Jehovah say regarding these gods? He says "there is no God EXCEPT me!" (LXX). I'm aware that some have argued that the Hebrew behind the word "except" actually means "with." I'm no Hebrew scholar, so I'm not prepared to argue one way or the other; however, the LXX translators chose to translate the word using PLHN. BAGD does not include "with" in any definition of PLHN, but renders it "except" for passages in the LXX with the genitive (this is a general reference with no specific verse citations). So, it seems clear that the LXX translators, at least, perceived that Jehovah was claiming ontological exclusivity (ME EP OU THEOU) with regard to the other "gods" - who were living beings - and this seems unaccountable to me if the theology of 2nd Temple Jews was similar to your own with regard to "gods."

: So, MS, we have evidence internally in the passage (implicit) and externally from Paul's other work and the OT which to which he alluded (explicit) that living "gods" who are not God/gods are idols to whom the nations sacrifice, and these are the 'gods' to whom Paul refers in Gal 4:8.

MS:
I understand your view on this but it does not make a good proof for your view because it is not explicit. If you had a scripture that said that angels were not God by nature it would then be explicit.

In fact we do have something explicit that runs counter to your view. How can anyone be more of something than if they are called that something? Angels are called elohim and are beneh elohim. I am sure you know what it means to be calls 'sons of ...' in the Hebrew. Sons of prophets were prophets, etc.

So no number of implicit Scriptures can overturn the explicit ones. We should rather use the explicit references to inform our interpretation of the ambiguous ones, should'nt we?

Regards,
MS