Differentiating between gods and angels

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Back on Mar 3,2025 you referenced some commentary by Matthew Henry, where he said
"Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim" and mentioned the garden
of God.

Scripture says he is the anointed cherub, not that he acts like a cherub.  Do you view kings
David and Jesus as anointed cherubs?

All kings were anointed in Bible times, so there is nothing unusual about that.  And the book of Ezekiel has several literary styles that include narrative, poetry, prophetic, and apocalyptic literature, so the genre needs to be taken into account before literal readings are assumed. 

In Ezekiel 28 the prophet speaks prophetically and poetically about Tyre's destruction. The king of Tyre was anointed as king and his dominion covered the land as the wings of a cherub.  The prophet is using poetic and prophetic language which is common among the prophets.  It has nothing to do with Satan (as the Matthew Henry commentary points out), although I'm sure the prophet is using some parallels to Satan's downfall intentionally. 

As for David, his dominion covered all of Israel, and the dominion of Jesus is much greater than that of course.  As David wrote of the LORD in Psalm 36, "How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings." (Psalms 36:7)  So the dominion of the Lord is expressed in poetic language to be like "wings".  The LORD doesn't have literal wings anymore than the king of Tyre is a literal cherub.  Kings have dominion that covers a region of land, and in the case of the king of Tyre it was expressed like the wings of a cherub, a covering of the people.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Yes.  I am familiar with the church's teaching on exaltation

I know you are familiar with the teaching (we've discussed it so many times), so why do you keep asking about it over and over?

Edited March 9, 2025 by InCognitus

[GoCeltics]

On 3/8/2025 at 12:52 PM, InCognitus said:

Abraham 3:18–19: "18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.   19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all."

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33:  ”For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy"

"The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four 1839–42, p.158)

Were those intelligences gender-neutral and self-aware?

[InCognitus]

32 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Were those intelligences gender-neutral and self-aware?

The spirits of Abraham 3:18-19 are not gender neutral and they are self-aware.  But beyond that, show me a revelation that addresses that question and I'll answer it.  Otherwise there is no point in speculating.

Edited March 10, 2025 by InCognitus

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Otherwise there is no point in speculating.

But how fun is that? 

[Pyreaux]

It's just a Early Christian tradition. The Early Christians, deprived of the texts that provided context behind narratives involving angelic characters, including the fall of Satan, because the Jews burned them all, had to make do with the few books of the modern sanitized Old Testament. Indeed, identifying clear parallels, but not the original source of the New Testament narrative. The modern Jews refute that Satan "fell" at all, claiming he's just God's agent, a prosecutor, and those saying he's "evil" is just a Christian invention they attempt to superimposed on the Torah.

What we are reading is there are a series of rebellious spiritual beings in heaven getting repeatedly cast out. There are calls for the punishment of "[elohim]" (Ps 58:1; Ps 82). A council full of malicious Holy Ones desiring to test mankind (Job 15:7; 1:6) most of whom seem doomed to be expulsed (Ps 82:7).

You see, in an original story the wicked spirits were cast out during the war in heaven to the pre-existing world of water. The covenant was forged to bind these agents of chaos, to bring created order to the earth, and so that even these spirits might serve a higher purpose. The Creation waters were rebellious (Psalms 93:3) so the waters had to be rebuked so land would appear (Genesis 1:9; Nah 1:4) and to keep order, to keep it separated, the Lord set a boundary for the sea (Jer 5:22).

Thus, Israelite poetry portrays the future enemies of Israel as fallen heavenly beings, sea monsters and flood waters (Ps 69:1-4; 93:1-4). Breaking the covenant sets wild angels originally sealed in nature loose causing natural disasters and tyranny, so the original war repeats over and over again. There is an ongoing conflict between the "sons of light" (Luke 16:8 (1-13); John 12:36; Ephesians 5:8; 1 Thes 5:5; Mt 5:14-16; Thomas 50) and the "sons of Belair" (1 Samuel 1:16; 2:12; 2 Corinthians 6:14-15), or the devil (Matthew 23:33; Luke 3:7; John 8:44; 12:34) or perdition (John 17:12; 2 Thes 2:3).

For example, Daniel draws upon these elements from an original story of the war, but as it's compared to four contemporary empires, because once again evil arose from the sea to oppress the people of God. This is the reason the kings of the rebellious nations are portrayed as sea monsters, is because their antecedents were originally sea monsters (Dan 7:17). Foes rise up to fight the warrior guardian angel of Israel, Yhwh, the "son of man" (Dan 7:13), fights four beasts that rise up out of "the great sea" that come against him (Dan 7:2-7). One is slain (or defeated) while the others are allowed to live, but their power is taken from them (Dan 7:11-12).

The story is repeated again, a "little horn" of a goat has set himself against the "host" and "stars" of heaven and was eventually "cast down" (Dan 8:9-11).

Again, the Angel of Israel (the Lord) fights a sea monster, the prince of Persia, and this monster is so mighty, "Michael, one of the chief princes," as one of the archangels, comes to the Lord's aid (Dan 10:5-6).

John the Revelator seems to repeat this story, the archangel "Michael" comes to the “man-child's” aid in the defeat of a "dragon" the "old serpent, called the devil and Satan" during the "war in heaven" (Rev 12:7-9).

Again, while portraying the future, the beasts rise out of the sea, Christ returns, possessing a secret name, and is the leader of an angel army against Satan (Rev 19:12-13).

Modern scholars who get trained to see through the imagery of the Old Testament as referring to contemporary events and people. Some, may know about the Royal cult, or the Jewish angel cult, or read Old Testament era so-called "Pseudepigrapha" and are observant that Ezekiel 27 personifies the 'city' of Tyre doomed to be cast into the sea, then in 28 specifies a 'prince' (28.2) and a 'king' (28.11) of Tyre as the recipients of two separate criticisms. Though some of the details in Ezekiel's description of the 'prince' corresponds with the 'king':

He is beautiful and wise (verses 3, 7 / 12-14,17)
His heart became proud (2, 5-6 / 17)
His violence stemming from his wealthy trade (4-5 / 15-16,18)
God will overthrow him (7-10 / 16-19)

But the celestial "prince of Tyre" is condemned for thinking himself to be God (Eze 28:2-10). The king of Tyre is corrupting his wisdom, and being called a 'cherub' of 'Eden' could be understood, as a metaphor that describes the king's privileges and how terrible his condemnation is. Or slightly more likely, he is a foreign royal priest, having been anointed by God or a god, like in the Israelite royal covenant renders Israelite kings as sons of God (2 Sam 7), heavenly reborn beings on earth, vessels for their patron deity.

Tyre is a city-state of Phoenicia who worshipped Ba'al, and the King of Tyre is Ithobaal III, I would assume Ba'al is the celestial prince of Tyre that will fall into the sea, just like past fallen angels, the true power behind the throne, responsible for the wealth of Tyre. Though it seems the daughter of the king of Tyre, Europa, brought Ba'al, a storm deity, worship to Crea where he'd be worshipped as Jupiter/Zeus.

Edited March 11, 2025 by Pyreaux

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Again, the Angel of Israel (the Lord) fights a sea monster, the prince of Persia, and this monster is so mighty, "Michael, one of the chief princes," as one of the archangels, comes to the Lord's aid (Dan 10:5-6).

I understood the angel in 10 not to be the Lord, but to be the same angel sent in 9- Gabriel.

[Pyreaux]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I understood the angel in 10 not to be the Lord, but to be the same angel sent in 9- Gabriel.

The heavenly guardian of Israel is unnamed, its because one might presume it to be sacred, as the Lord's name is in most Apocalypses. The Lord of Israel is a warrior who fights for Israel.

Edited March 11, 2025 by Pyreaux

[GoCeltics]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The spirits of Abraham 3:18-19 are not gender neutral and they are self-aware. 

I don’t see intelligences as having a gender before becoming spirit children of God in that passage.

Edited March 11, 2025 by GoCeltics

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

I don’t see intelligences as having a gender before becoming spirit children of God in that passage.

We've discussed this before.

Abraham was named as one of them.  It's clear.  

[InCognitus]

On 3/5/2025 at 8:40 AM, GoCeltics said:

On 3/2/2025 at 2:42 PM, InCognitus said:

And remember, Jesus is called the "Angel of the LORD" in scripture.  Does that mean Jesus really does have the same nature as angels?  (See the Got Questions website article, Who is the angel of the Lord?)

I view it as “representative of the Lord” or “messenger of the Lord” instead of a being with the same nature of an angel.

I wanted to ask you a question relative to the situation we were discussing above where Jesus is called the "Angel of the LORD" in scripture, and how that applies to the topic of this thread.

Given that an "angel" is really just a job description for "messengers" or "representatives of the Lord" (as you put it), and since even Jesus (who is God) held the job description of the messenger of God the Father for a period of time (and he is still the mediator between God the Father and man), what do you now see as the difference between gods and angels (if there is one) after reviewing the discussion that has gone on in this thread?  

[theplains]

On 3/6/2025 at 4:57 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is no question that LDS theology rejects the notion of original sin.

By original sin, I mean the first sin.  

How do you understand "original" sin?

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

By original sin, I mean the first sin.  

How do you understand "original" sin?

I generally use it in the normative sense:

Quote

Original sin in Christian theology refers to the condition of sinfulness that all humans share, which is inherited from Adam and Eve due to the Fall, involving the loss of original righteousness and the distortion of the Image of God.

So in my comment, I mean that Mormonism does not believe that mankind exists in a condition of sinfulness that is inherited from Adam and Eve. This is most clearly indicated in the LDS doctrine that "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin" (Moroni 8:8). Mormonism recognizes a fallen (i.e. a mortal) condition, but this does not necessitate a condition of sinfulness, which only comes as a result of our individual violations of the divine will.

Edited March 20, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[GoCeltics]

On 3/17/2025 at 3:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Given that an "angel" is really just a job description for "messengers" or "representatives of the Lord" (as you put it), and since even Jesus (who is God) held the job description of the messenger of God the Father for a period of time (and he is still the mediator between God the Father and man), what do you now see as the difference between gods and angels (if there is one) after reviewing the discussion that has gone on in this thread? 

Angels - some are beings created by God.  Some are representative of human messengers.

gods - human judges or powerful rulers, like Satan (a god of this world).

[InCognitus]

3 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Angels - some are beings created by God.  Some are representative of human messengers.

Ok, so Jesus, the "Angel of the Lord" was created by God and is a representative of human messenger?

4 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

gods - human judges or powerful rulers, like Satan (a god of this world).

Where does the Bible ever refer to human judges as gods?  And don't say Psalm 82, because you already know it doesn't say that.

[Pyreaux]

On 3/21/2025 at 9:42 AM, InCognitus said:

Ok, so Jesus, the "Angel of the Lord" was created by God and is a representative of human messenger?

Personally, I'd rather say angelic sons of God are "born", Jesus was firstborn of all Creation. The Lord-Jesus is often identified as the Lord-God himself, and Lord himself is often identified as the Angel of the Lord. In the Book of Judges, the term “angel of the Lord” is almost always means “the Lord”. Judges says it was the “angel of the Lord” that slew the firstborn of Egypt (Judges 2:2), while the Mosaic accounts make it clear it was the Lord himself, and no one else (Exodus 12:12; Deuteronomy 32:35).

So, Gideon saw an "angel of the Lord", he saw God “face to face” (Judges 6:22) and worries that he is going to die, but doesn’t (Judges 6:16). After he offers a meal to the "angel" on a rock, it then becomes transmuted into a burnt offering to God.

Manoah's wife sees a “man”, who turned out to be an “angel” whose name was a “secret”. Manoah offered the man food, but the man requested a burnt offering to the Lord. (Judges 13:16). When the man ascended into heaven, signaled to them he was the Lord, they say, “we shall surely die, because we have seen God”, but they don't (Judges 13:22). 

On 3/21/2025 at 9:42 AM, InCognitus said:

Where does the Bible ever refer to human judges as gods?  And don't say Psalm 82, because you already know it doesn't say that.

Likely some Strong's Concordances, or a lexicon based on it, will say an "elohim" can mean a "judge", the Strong's is heeding the Orthodox Jewish claim (who do say Psalm 82 are human judges) but the basis used for that is Exodus. Exodus keeps saying to bring criminals before "God" to be judged, and while they do mean a judge, but they aren't calling the judge "God" to then justify defining word "elohim" as a "judge" as Jews do to merely protect their monotheism.

Exodus 22:6-8 [Eng., 22:7-9] from the JPS Tanakh: "6 When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man’s house—if the thief is caught, he shall pay double; 7 if the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall come near (נקרב) to God (האלהים) that he has not laid hands on the other’s property. 8 In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an @ss, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “This is it”—the case of both parties shall come before God (האלהים): he whom God (אלהים) declares guilty (ירשיען) shall pay double to the other."

There is nothing in Exodus that compels us to understand אלהים or האלהים as referring to the elders, this passage can quite readily refer to the God of Israel. There is nothing saying the men appointed by Moses are actually called אלהים or האלהים in the text. Thus, no support for seeing human אלהים in Psalm 82 because of Exodus, nor in the Strong's Concordance. One can always take it as an honest mistake.

Edited March 23, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

39 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Likely some Strong's Concordances, or a lexicon based on it, will say an "elohim" can mean a "judge", the Strong's is heeding the Orthodox Jewish claim (who do say Psalm 82 are human judges) but the basis used for that is Exodus. Exodus keeps saying to bring criminals before "God" to be judged, and while they do mean a judge, but they aren't calling the judge "God" to then justify defining word "elohim" as a "judge" as Jews do to merely protect their monotheism.

Exodus 22:6-8 [Eng., 22:7-9] from the JPS Tanakh: "6 When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man’s house—if the thief is caught, he shall pay double; 7 if the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall come near (נקרב) to God (האלהים) that he has not laid hands on the other’s property. 8 In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an @ss, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “This is it”—the case of both parties shall come before God (האלהים): he whom God (אלהים) declares guilty (ירשיען) shall pay double to the other."

There is nothing in Exodus that compels us to understand אלהים or האלהים as referring to the elders, this passage can quite readily refer to the God of Israel. There is nothing saying the men appointed by Moses are actually called אלהים or האלהים in the text. Thus, no support for seeing human אלהים in Psalm 82 because of Exodus, nor in the Strong's Concordance. One can always take it as an honest mistake.

Yes, the Hebrew word elohim is translated as "judges" or "judge" only five times in the KJV, in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8; twice in Exodus 22:9, and as "judge" in 1 Samuel 2:25.  And in every one of those places the word should be translated as "God" instead of “judges or “judge”, as you pointed out, and the ESV translation of those verses that I linked to each of those references translates it that way.  

[GoCeltics]

On 3/21/2025 at 10:42 AM, InCognitus said:

Ok, so Jesus, the "Angel of the Lord" was created by God and is a representative of human messenger?

Some refer to that angel as Christ.  I do not.  But if it were, it does not mean he is created by heavenly parents. If you believe otherwise, then provide scriptural evidence.
 

On 3/21/2025 at 10:42 AM, InCognitus said:

Where does the Bible ever refer to human judges as gods?  And don't say Psalm 82, because you already know it doesn't say that.

 We differ in that respect.

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Some refer to that angel as Christ.  I do not.  But if it were, it does not mean he is created by heavenly parents. If you believe otherwise, then provide scriptural evidence.

Born! Angels are born. "These are the generations [begettings] of the heavens" (Genesis 2:4). But anyway, there are various evidences we can use to establish that a structure is displayed in the scriptures of a pantheon as a divine family. Does or does not Jesus have a preincarnate identity as the "Son of God" in the Old Testament (Daniel 3:25; 7:13)? Is not being a "Son of God" and "Firstborn of all creation" naturally implies He was born of at least a parent, God the Father, before he was born in the flesh (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:5)? And Jesus identifies He and John the Baptist's Mother as the Divine Wisdom, "Wisdom is justified by all her children" (Luke 7:35). You'd have somewhat of a burden of telling us how that is an impossible reading. 

Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego and the Son of God

[GoCeltics]

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Is not being a "Son of God" and "Firstborn of all creation" naturally implies He was born of at least a parent, God the Father, before he was born in the flesh (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:5)?

What does it mean that Jesus is the “firstborn” over Creation? | GotQuestions.org

Edited March 25, 2025 by GoCeltics

[Pyreaux]

10 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

What does it mean that Jesus is the “firstborn” over Creation? | GotQuestions.org

That is certainly the common Creedal understanding, but not the only understanding. It was actually debated and fought over throughout much of church history. The Nicene Creed was forged because Bishop Arius insisted that Jesus did have a beginning, that he was God’s first creation, then Jesus, in turn, was responsible for the rest of creation. That is a possible reading, G#4416 prototokos, From protos, (meaning "first") and tikto, (meaning "to bear") meaning the firstborn child in a family, the eldest chronological birth, as it is in ancient Hebrew, the first meaning of a firstborn is literal, referring to the fact that a son is the first son to be born of a father, which does indicate he was "born" during the Creation. Creedalists are only insisting its merely an expression to avoid the possibility that the Bible designates Jesus as a type of created being. It challenges your understanding of who Jesus is. Was Jesus always part of the Godhead? Or did he have a beginning as the firstborn of God?

The Greek is literally saying Jesus came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things, this passage does not with certainty prove that Paul reckoned that firstborn should be counted in the number of created beings, with respect, Colossians 1:15: The phrase “the firstborn over all creation" I can argue underscores Jesus’ was born, and “For by Him all things were created…” (1:16), without conflict as I can argue it just indicates that while Jesus Himself is the Creator, doesn't exclude Him from being "born" before Creation and thus still "uncreated" if things that are "born" are not "created" things. Even if the spirit body of Jesus, like his physical body, had not always existed, he is still an uncreated "intelligence" (or "self" or "inner person"). After all, the verb is used to describe God's creation means "to build", "to form", or "to shape", not acts of creation ex nihilo, but involve working with existing materials, and in our theology includes intelligences.

Edited March 26, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

On 3/24/2025 at 7:10 AM, GoCeltics said:

Some refer to that angel as Christ.  I do not.  But if it were, it does not mean he is created by heavenly parents. If you believe otherwise, then provide scriptural evidence.

I think the heart of the problem is that you view "angels" as a separate species of beings that are created for a specific purpose, like the way much of Christian tradition teaches today (which is why you believe there is a "nature of angels"), whereas the Bible teaches that angels are job description, a job description that any person could have for a period of time. 

That's why it doesn't sit well with you to refer to Jesus as the "Angel of the Lord", because (in your view) it makes it seem like Jesus is one of those kinds of beings that you see as having a different nature.  But if "angel" is just a job description it doesn't matter if Jesus is called the "messenger" of his God and Father at all, it doesn't change his nature (it's just a job description).  But the truth is the Bible teaches that Jesus is the mediator between God and man, which fits the job description (if only for a period of time).

[GoCeltics]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think the heart of the problem is that you view "angels" as a separate species of beings that are created for a specific purpose, like the way much of Christian tradition teaches today (which is why you believe there is a "nature of angels"), whereas the Bible teaches that angels are job description, a job description that any person could have for a period of time..

So a God (an exalted being) is really a person who is not acting as a messenger and when he assumes the role of messenger, he takes on an "angel" status?  Similarly, a non-exalted being takes on "angel" status when acting as a messenger?

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

So a God (an exalted being) is really a person who is not acting as a messenger and when he assumes the role of messenger, he takes on an "angel" status?  Similarly, a non-exalted being takes on "angel" status when acting as a messenger?

Semantics: in this case, a label (angel) does not describe a status (God), but a describes a function (individual, face-to-face, personal interactive messenger in spirit or in the flesh) within the God status.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

So a God (an exalted being) is really a person who is not acting as a messenger and when he assumes the role of messenger, he takes on an "angel" status?  Similarly, a non-exalted being takes on "angel" status when acting as a messenger?

What CV75 said:

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Semantics: in this case, a label (angel) does not describe a status (God), but a describes a function (individual, face-to-face, personal interactive messenger in spirit or in the flesh) within the God status.

Exactly right.

[Pyreaux]

It can get complicated once you know that the most common Hebrew terminology used to describe angelic heavenly beings who aren't Elohim "God" are also called an elohim, a god... And is used to describe other beings like demons and some human dead, like Samuel. Evangelical scholar Michael Hieser helped a lot to point this out, though his conclusion is logical, he concludes a "god" is just a noun describing all beings from the spiritual realm, but I disagree.

Rather some beings share a status (and a species) of "elim", through sonship, and so the angelic heavenly beings that are "sons of God", "the gods... the watchers", and "morning stars", and some of the demons are also "sons of God", but are demonized as they are the heavenly disloyal lesser "gods" of rival nations, and some royal priests are made "sons of the Lord", new heavenly beings on earth. Technically godhood is a status any type of being can hold, they can have a body or no body, and yet strangely are considered the same species.

There is only one true Adam the father, but all the sons of Adam are also themselves adams or "men", an adam is denoting the species. An Israelite was a newly founded covenant people were also a species or breed, but in the divine law of adoption, a Gentile is legally-miraculously transformed into an actual blood descendant of Israel, he is "born" the day they are adopted, he's officially joined the breed. All Christians who become "born again", are adopted by the Lord-Jesus, and are a new creature, called the new "sons of God". They wear the priestly white temple robes and sash, not just because they are royal priests, they are dressing the way the angels dress and as God dresses, imitating a god.

So, Samuel, and for doubters the text says, “it was Samuel” (1 Samuel 28:14), was described by a witch to King Saul as no ordinary looking "ob" or ghost, she said she saw an elohim or a "god", and describes his features as an old man in a “coat", identified as a sacred robe in Jewish sources. I'm saying other dead spirits may not be wearing priestly robes and wouldn't look like a "god". I don't think all dead humans are gods, as per Dr Heiser, rather just some are.

Some malakim-angels are humans, heavenly beings and deities. Some elohim-gods are human, heavenly beings and deities... Just seems like these are top-down or bottom-up relationships... I guess to be an angel, one would think they would be 'below' the one who sent him, and a god is like an executive position even lesser foreign gods of a nation or even Satan, could correctly called a "god of this world", as he has "his angels". Are we questioning whether a deity can be classified as an angel, if only to say he sent himself as his own angel? Maybe, these instances are classically called Angel Theophanies, what Catholics consider is a disguise to shield humans from his deadly glory of his true form. Humans like Moses was sent to be "god to Pharoh" or other human executives like the king is decreed an "everlasting god" in his royal transfigured state, and is the voice of God, decreeing new laws and judgements... Weird. weird.

Edited March 27, 2025 by Pyreaux