Yes, Elohim does equate to Angels in some cases, and this shows up in several places from the Psalms, one of which has already been quoted to you and others in several other threads:
Psalms 8:4-5 KJV
4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5. For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, [HSN#0430 'Elohiym] and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Psalm 8:4-5 ASV
4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5. For thou hast made him but little lower than God, [HSN#0430 'Elohiym] And crownest him with glory and honor.
Hebrews 2:6-9 KJV
6. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; [GSN#0032 aggelos] thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [GSN#0032 aggelos] for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
And again likewise Elohim is rendered Angelon in the Septuagint version of Psalm 138:1, (which is Psalm 137:1 in the Septuagint). You simply do not wish to face the fact that my forefathers had an entirely different belief system concerning the Angels because your theology requires you to minimize the field of angelology when it suits your purposes but then you allow it such as in the case of Moroni when it comes to making a whole new religion.
Last first. The case of Moroni merely illustrates my point. Moroni was a man who lived on the earth, and yet later came as a messenger, so is called an angel from the Greek for messenger - although I don't believe he ever referred to himself as such. He simply appeared, identified himself as Moroni, and delivered messages, so the appellation of messenger/angel is appropriate.
Second, I do not know much of anything about your forefathers, as you have never identified them to me that I recall. You will note that I said you must be a hellenized Jew. I do not mean that as an insult, but it is the best I can place you from your use of scripture. You assume that I am a Gentile, but my guess is you know nothing about me. I am your cousin, and we are probably more closely related than you think.
As for the belief system of your "forefathers" about angelology, that to me is probably interesting but will not override my reading of scripture as I do not allow the beliefs of men to do so - I may agree or I may not. I do not know specifically what you believe about angels, but scripture tells me they are the spirits of men sent as messengers. Hence, we find Daniel speaking with the MAN Gabriel. Perhaps you will run from the masoretic text there too rather than accept its simple truth.
You do this because your goal is to elevate Yeshua to equality with the Father. In addition to what was said in my previous post there is a mountain of evidence against your theories, (and what follows is still just the proverbial tip of the iceberg).
methinks you do not know my goal. I have said several times that the Son is not equal to the Father, and listed reasons why. Yes, I do believe He will be equal to the Father, and so far as I know I am the only one who believes this outside maybe some of the prophets without completely confounding God or the persons of Elohim. My "goal" is to honor the Father and the Son, who have shown me these things, and to reveal the truth about the scriptures, and how men confound them.
The first place "ha-'Elohiym" actually occurs in the Masoretic Hebrew Text is Genesis 5:22-24 and it appears twice in the same passage concerning Enoch:
Genesis 5:22-24
22. And Enoch walked with ha-Elohim after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23. And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24. And Enoch walked with ha-Elohim: and he was not; for Elohim took him.
That doesn't seem to be speaking of "angels" there, so is not helping your case that "angels" are elohim "sometimes."
And this is surely no coincidence, being the first usage of "ha-Elohim", for one may plainly read what was thought at the time of Yeshua concerning this passage in the very book of 1Enoch where there are seven holy Elohim-Angels who watch from the beginning and even Daniel 4:17 supports this claim where it reads watchers and holy ones, (plural).
Enoch 20:1-8
1. These are the names of the holy Angels who watch:
2. Uriy'el, one of the holy Angels, over the world and over Tartarus.
3. Rapha'el, one of the holy Angels, over the spirits of men.
4. Raguw'el, one of the holy Angels, punishing the world of luminaries.
5. Miyka'el, one of the holy Angels, over human virtue, commanding nations.
6. Sharaqa'el, one of the holy Angels, over the spirits of sons of men transgressing.
7. Gabriy'el, one of the holy Angels, over Ikisat, Paradise, and Krubim.
8. Ra'amiy'el, one of the holy Angels, whom Ellahh set over those rising.
What "was thought" and what Enoch says are of little concern to me. I am concerned with what God said. I am of the firm belief that the Book of Enoch is gnostic in nature, and is not the Word of God. The fact that men wrote additional books to confirm their theories is quite evident from history, and merely goes to prove my case that the Septuagint tends to do that even as it represents to be a translation of the Hebrew. The fact is God did not give that translation - men did. And their prejudices about God show up in it. Which is why you favor it over the Masoretic text - because you do not believe what YHWH Elohim told Adam and Eve: that they had become even as "us" knowing good and evil. Rather than dismissing this as some kind of malevolent addition by the masoretes, maybe you should try to understand why God can say such a thing. How does YHWH Elohim know evil? and how did that make Adam and Eve like YHWH Elohim? you see, orthodoxy has a problem believing YHWH Elohim too, since that blows apart the paradigm they were taught. Virtually every time I bring this up, they will say that the devil is trying to trick us into believing that we can be like God, when it is YHWH Elohim saying it. They just can't believe it. So it appears neither the Jews nor the "orthodox" Christians believe Gen 3:22 as written in the masoretic text. I choose to believe it so I point it out because, yes, it does substantiate my belief, but more importantly because it confirms my reasons for believing what I do. If there was no scripture to confirm my beliefs, I would be forced to change them. It was scripture which led me to my beliefs and my personal experiences with God confirms scripture.
Daniel 10:13
13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty and the first day: and behold, Miyka'el, 'achad ha-Sarim ha-ri'shonim, came to seccur me; and I jutted over from there beside malkey Persia.
Here in Daniel 10:13 Miykael is no doubt one-echad of the Sarim-Princes of the beginning, (ha-rishonim) which are the same seven holy Angels of the 1Enoch passage quoted above.
This is true of Michael, as he is Adam, so yes, he is one of the princes "of the beginning." As for the others named in the Book of Enoch, you will have to show me a masoretic source for them for me to accept them without question, although I will give the Peshitta and the Septuagint some weight.
And the fact that Elohim sometimes implies holy Elohim-Angels is again born out by the interpretation of the author of 1Enoch as to whom it was that was actually sent to Noach to warn him of the flood and explain to him what to do and how to build the Ark. In 1Enoch 10:1 this Messenger one-united is Arsayalalyur-Asaryalyor-Sariel-Uriel-Yistrael, ("Elohey Yisrael", which is the surname given to Mashiyach Kuros-Kurie in Isaiah 45:3) whereas as compared to Genesis 6 it is simply written that Elohim spoke to Noach warning him of the coming flood and telling him how to build the Ark, (Genesis 6:13). Whether one believes 1Enoch or not has no bearing on the point because what is of critical importance is that 1Enoch reveals what was indeed believed to be true by many concerning the understanding of the word "Elohim" at that time, and in the time of the Advent of Messiah, and shortly thereafter reinforced by the Epistle of Jude which quotes from Enoch. The author of 1Enoch clearly believes that "the Elohim", (ha-Elohim) are "the Angels" at least in some instances and clearly that includes the seven holy Angels from the beginning of creation. The author also clearly believes that the Most High Father YHWH is THE POWER over and above the seven holy Elohim-Angels and any and all other elohim.
Let me say it this way. The messengers/"angels" of scripture are surely of the 144,000 servants of Rev 7, and are either men who have come to earth or were to come to earth. Daniel confirms this about "the man" Gabriel.
You have not shown anything that proves "Jesus is also YHWH" as you say but instead you only reveal that you have an alternative agenda, which is yet another God-man theology, (that of Mormonism) which just so happens to get along fairly good with Trinitarian God-man theology.
I have shown several scriptures which affirm this truth but you look for alternative readings to the masoretic text, because the truth disturbs your apple cart. Here is another in answer to your next question:
Do you not believe that the Father was once a man?
Zech 12: 8 In that day shall
YHWH defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.
9 ¶And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and
they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
It doesn't matter whether you believe YHWH here is the Father or the Son - you are proved wrong unless you hem-haw on the interpretation. Either way, YHWH is derived from the letters meaning Behold the hand, Behold the Nail. How did the Father get that name? Perhaps now you see how they both got that name? and how they are truly one?
and how others may inherit that name per Jeremiah 33:16.
This speaks to the reason you deny the true masoretic version of Gen 3:22. If you accept it as the truth, then these things in scripture become all too clear for your paradigm to stand.
I have asked you this elsewhere here in this board, and I do not remember you answering that question, but then again I do not suppose it would go over too well around these parts if you admitted to believing such a thing, eh?
If you think you are going to try to "blackmail" me for my belief, you are wrong. I have discussed it here at length on TOL using the Bible. This truth will win in the end as God publishes His holy name throughout the ends of the earth.
If you believe that the Father also was once a man then of course you are going to argue the position which you do because in your paradigm Yeshua was no different than the Father but merely "working his way" to Godhead status to eventually become equal to the Father who at one time in your paradigm did the same. You have made the same critical error as mainstream Christianity by taking anthropomorphism way beyond its originally intended usages so as to avoid doing exactly what you have done in your mindset. There is no place where Yeshua is called God of gods because that title is above King of kings and Lord of lords, and above any other title, and it is reserved for the Father YHWH Elohim:
Deuteronomy 10:17 KJV
17. For the Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Deuteronomy 10:17 Transliterated
17. Kiy YHWH 'Eloheykem huw' 'Elohey ha'lohiym wa-'Adoney ha'adoniym -- ha-'El hagadol hagibor whanowra' 'sher lo'-yisa' paniym wlo' yiqach shochad!
Deuteronomy 10:17
17. For YHWH your Elohey is Elohey ha-Elohim, and Adoney ha-adonim, ha-El ha-Gadol, and ha-Nowra', (the awesome-terrible), Who accepts not persons, nor takes a bribe!
Did I not just bring up this passage myself to show the truth about Elohim?
Joshua 22:22 also reads, "El Elohim YHWH, El Elohim YHWH". Can you show me anywhere Yeshua is called by the titles found in Deuteronomy 10:17 or Joshua 22:22?
No, and I have not tried to claim that. I have clearly stated that only Heavenly Father is called El Elyon, the Most High El. Jesus, is presented to us as the Son of the Most High - even the devils know that better than orthodoxy which tries to proclaim His co-equality, when Jesus proclaimed the Father is greater. But Jesus also showed us up on the tree that He is indeed YHWH Elohim with the Father, and there are passages which reveal Him as such, and speaking as such which you choose to disregard due to your own personal paradigm. My belief goes way beyond extending anthropomorphism. I merely believe the scriptures in their totality and as shown to me in the spirit of God. Jesus truly did do all things He had seen the Father do, and was simply doing likewise. It is a simple truth. Jesus plainly showed us of the Father throughout His ministry even up on the tree, and was indeed the revelation of the Father to us. In this light the begotten nature of the Son comes into the light of day, and is no longer obscured. He was indeed sent as the only Begotten Son of the Father. When we heard Him, we indeed heard the very teaching of the Father for they are one YHWH Elohim.
You are playing the Oneness doctrine people against the traditional Trinitarians and siding with whoever agrees more with you in a given situation while all the time being a Mormon of a completely different mindset than those you encourage when it suits your belief system.
I am not playing anyone against anyone my friend. I completely disagree with "Oneness" theology. It simply is unscriptural. I once tried to be Unitarian, but I did not find the spirit of God to be with them. I think my belief may offend them more than it does "trinitarians" because they never seem to accept that Jesus is or at least will become our God. No one seems to accept the many scriptures which show the many ways that Yeshua does indeed change - He inherits His name. He inherits the mountains and government of the Father. He is the only servant unto whom the Father will give His glory per Isa 42. Trinitarians desperately want to make Him the Father in every way possible when the Father sent Him as His Son and authorized agent.
In addition it now appears you would like to alienate me even more so than I have already done to myself thus far because you apparently are not truly concerned about what is written unless it supports your stance. My forefathers lived in the desert and believed these words. Your forefathers lived in Amerika and received another messenger whose name was Moroni.
I have no desire to alienate you Daqq. You know I have even complemented you especially concerning your knowledge of Hebrew. I even pick up pointers from you like the passage in Joshua re El Elohim YHWH. I have read from the KJV too long in my life to pick up all the fine nuances it caused me to miss. I merely debate the finer points of scripture with you in the hopes that someone will at least see what I am saying. Maybe some will pray about it. Have you ever prayed to the Father in the name of Yeshua to ask if they are YHWH Elohim together?
I am puzzled as to why you once tried to represent to me that Jesus is the Branch, and yet deny that he is YHWH...
If the Branch can be YHWH, Jesus can be YHWH.
Back to your forefathers...
are you saying you are of Jewish descent?
How do you know I am not?
None of my "forefathers" received Moroni. I was among the very first to convert to the LDS church among all my known lines of descent. My paternal side immigrated to the United States through the Caribbean a mere 2 generations ago ie when my grandfather was a boy. My guess is that some of my forefathers wandered in the same deserts as yours...that is if you are of Jewish descent. So perhaps you should not presume things about me you do not know...
Nevertheless, you can be assured that I have no desire to alienate you my friend. Everything I have seen about you suggests a diligent student of scriptures even if I disagree with your reliance on Bezae Codex or the Septuagint when it suits you.
Cheers
