I said:

His statement, “He is the one whom the very soul that takes him as a god imitates in its deeds,” means that the worshiper’s own soul models its actions on him.

Likewise, his words, “and it sets the body in which it dwells in motion according to his will, in keeping with his choice and movement; thus the learner calls the teacher he imitates ‘god’ and ‘lord,’” show that the worshiper acts in order to resemble that being. The soul, then, aligns the body so that it matches the will of the one worshiped and mirrors it in accordance with that one’s volition and motion. He has thus made clear that the devotee does what his object of worship does, that the latter commands him, and that the devotee therefore wills and moves his body in harmony with the object of worship’s will and motion.

He then likened this to a pupil with his instructor: the pupil imitates and obeys the instructor so as to resemble him, and in their discourse such an instructor counts as the pupil’s god and lord. The relationship is comparable to that of a disciple with his master, and at its highest it resembles the bond of a community with its prophet, following his example and submitting to his command.

What he has cited from them accords with what others have reported—namely, that in their view philosophy is the imitation of the deity to the extent possible. He ascribed yet another meaning to “god”: an unseen agent who wields authority, and under this definition he counted the angels among the gods. He further clarified that their divine science first discusses the genus of gods, and then the attributes of the supreme God, the God of gods. Thus, for them, divinity is a quality shared by God, the angels, the teachers, and anyone whom we emulate; however—