We should agree to disagree ... and get back on topic

Submitted by Oliver (United States), Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15

Let's see: hypsistos (upsistos) in Greek writing mostly poetic highest, most high

1. of place i.e. the highest regions, heaven

Mt. 21:9; Mk 11:10; Lk 2:14, 19:38

1. of rank : of god ‘o theos o upsistos' the most high god

Mk. 5:7; Lk 8:28; Acts 16:17; Heb 7:1

Or simply ‘o upsistos' the most high

Acts 7:48

Or without the article ‘upsistos'

Lk. 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35

Oliver,

"Extant copies of Paul's writings are all in Greek – when Paul referred to god he used the Greek word theos or kurios – when have I ever disparaged the use of the Greek word theos to refer to god "

So, even though it the term was used with reference to pagan deities, specifically that of the pre-Christian Theos Hypsistos, it gets a "pass".

Again – you are beating at the air – you are trying to say that a ‘title' that could be (and was) applied to ANY god or the true god is somehow the NAME of the god it is applied to. YHVH shares many of these so-called NAMES with Allah – I don't use them for arguments because they are TITLES that could be ascribed to ANY god or the true god. A TITLE IS NOT A NAME.

You missed my point entirely; I think your argument with me holds many parallels to that of Paul with Peter. Think about it: Peter's sanctimonious responses to Paul's evangelizing, Peter's insistence Peter saw it was IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile "gentile" culture with that of Christianity. Paul did so, capitalized directly on the cult of Theos Hypsistos, and succeeded in conversion.

Point – what point – Paul vs Peter – quote some verses and we can discuss the matter – honesty, I don't recall any sanctimonious statements made by Peter to Paul regarding any subject – but, I could be mistaken – quote some verses – let me ‘see' what you mean.

As for Paul ‘capitalizing' of the Jewish-Pagan Cult of Ypsistos – let me quote some verses –

Act 16:16 It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling.

Act 16:17 Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, "These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation."

Act 16:18 She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!" And it came out at that very moment.

So tell me how Paul ‘capitalized' on this cult of upsistos ‘prophetess' by casting out the spirit that was testifying about him? Oh and where does Paul use the term upsistos in any of his writings – quote me a verse – you would think if he was ‘capitalizing' on this cult he'd at least use the term upsistos.

"Using the name of a pagan god to refer to the true and living god is certainly BLASPHEMY."

FINALLY – is this a statement of agreement? LOL

So then, is the use of theos. The only reliance that you have, is that of precedent in the words of Paul, but not the ACTUAL words of Christ, as he is not know to have spoken Greek, is he?

Submitted by zzazzeefrazzee (United States), Mar 11, 2008 at 21:34

Oliver, I guess you think that you can only properly refer to God in Hebrew. How quaint!
Now, one wonders if Paul expressed as much while preaching to the Greeks and Romans? hmmmm....

YOU are the one who brought Paul into this discussion – I said Paul used theos and kurios to refer to the Christian god – as a matter of fact theos and kurios are used everywhere in the NT to refer to the Christian god – and as for Christ not being able to speak Greek – come on, even your tri-lingual inscription, found – where – in Arabia, was in part in Greek. Greek was the most common spoken language in the area – Alexander the Great conquered the entire area some 300 years before Christ – how many of Christ's words were recorded in any language other than Greek?

hmmmm.... does this mean you like the taste of ‘red herring'? I think so because you sure like serving it.

Furthermore, the determination that the use of "Allah" by Christians is simply your own personal dogma; it is not at all shared by all Christians, and certainly not my Arabic-speaking Christian friends. You have no proof that Allah was used ONLY for a pagan god, and you overlook a very old tradition that the Arabs are directly descended from Abraham into to justify your claims. Basically, you are using arguments given by Morley, without ever citing him.

You have no proof the Allah was NOT used ONLY as the NAME of a pagan god in pre-Islamic Arabia. All you have proved is that pre-Islamic Christians used the term ‘al-ilah' to differentiate the Christian god from the Arab pagan god(s). Tradition is not proof of any thing – the Arabs have no hard evidence that they are descended from Abraham or even Ishmael – now they can believe whatever they want – where's the PROOF? You know, I recently submitted my last name, which isn't Twist, to one of those heraldry websites – just to see what would come up – well, kiss my ****, wouldn't you know I'm descended from a 13^th century King of France.

Our attempts to ‘prove' our ‘point' are far away from the topic of this thread – Is Allah God? I suggest that we agree to disagree and return to the topic at hand. So let me pose this answer to ‘the' question.

God revealed Himself to Israel (who are now called Jews) as YHVH.

God revealed Himself to those who became members of His ‘Church' as The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

God revealed Himself to those who became Muslim as Allah.

Is YHVH God? YES (for Jews) (and for Christians, too)

Is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit God? YES (for Christians)

Is Allah God? YES (for Muslims)

Are these three ‘revelations' of God the same ‘One and Only God – the Creator God'?

This is the matter that requires more investigation.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".