- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 18 2006,16:43) Quote Our Lord Jesus always has been and always will be subject to the Father. However, God the Father is subject to NO ONE. Nice try though.
I agree that Yahshua will always be subject to His father, but if you are asserting that the Lord always was subject to Him (i.e. before the incarnation) then I disagree and would like you to substantiate this, if you can. Can you point me to a verse that shows that the Father was also the pre-incarnate Logo’s God?
Hi Is:Think about it: if in his exaltation he “will always be subject to his father,” then how about what he was before his worthy exaltation! You cannot say that his exaltation leaves him less exalted than he had been!
Cheers.
Hi,
And if the Most High God is always greater than all others including The Son, then equality is another myth.Hello Seminarian,
If you've read my reply to your post you will have seen that I addressed all the salient points you raised and answered all the penetrating questions you posed me. I also asked you two questions in return, which are these:Quote None of this invalidates the trinity. BTW, I agree that Yahshua isn’t co-equal in all respects. He willing submits to His Father’s authority, and in this respect there is disparity. However…if you are going to challenge the foundation of the doctrine you will need to prove an ontological disparity exists between them. The ball is in your court here Seminarian. Maybe you can start by telling me what kind of being Yahshua was before He took on flesh. If He was lower in His ontology surely the Bible will bear this out. Let's see….. Quote I agree that Yahshua will always be subject to His father, but if you are asserting that the Lord always was subject to Him (i.e. before the incarnation) then I disagree and would like you to substantiate this, if you can. Can you point me to a verse that shows that the Father was also the pre-incarnate Logo’s God? So Seminarian, the two questions I would like you to answer for me are:
1. What kind of being was the pre-incarnate Logos?
2. Can you point me to a verse that shows that the Father was always the Logos' God?
Thanks and regards
Is 1:18Hi Is 1.18,
We can know from Phil 2 that he was in the form of God.
We do not know what this means because no man has seen God or can grasp much about his being. But if he was in the form of God he was not part of that God.
He is the image of God and he was with God are also scriptural facts and both confirm he was separate from God in his divine nature.
We also know that there is no being to compare with God so no matter how glorious or similar he was he simply was on another divine plane altogether, a lesser being.Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,19:46) The Father calls Yahshua “God” because He is….it's as simple as that.
Jesus calls us god (theos) because we are. It's that simple.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 22 2006,22:53) 1. What kind of being was the pre-incarnate Logos? 2. Can you point me to a verse that shows that the Father was always the Logos' God?
Hi Is 1.18
1. Jesus Christ was in the form of God. Phil 2.5f
He was a divine being, the Word of God with God. Jn 1.12.The Logos was the only begotten firstborn son among the sons of the mighty.
Ps 89.5-8
5″The (A)heavens will praise Your wonders, O LORD;
Your faithfulness also (B)in the assembly of the ©holy ones.
6For (D)who in the skies is comparable to the LORD?
Who among the (E)sons of the mighty is like the LORD,
7A God (F)greatly feared in the council of the (G)holy ones,
And (H)awesome above all those who are around Him?
😯 LORD God of hosts, (I)who is like You, O mighty LORD?
Your faithfulness also surrounds You. “To all those open to the leading of the Holy Spirit and the truth about what Hebrews teaches concerning the Trinity and the deity of the Son in the book of Hebrews:
The Christ of Hebrews is as fully and truly human as everywhere else in Scripture—he shared our humanity (Heb. 2:14), was made like his brothers in every way (2:17), was a descendant of Judah (7:14), could sympathize with human weakness, having been tempted in every way like we are (2:18; 4:15), and who “in the days of his flesh” offered up prayers and petitions with loud crying and tears (a reference to Gethsemane?) (5:7) as he “learned obedience from the things which he suffered” (5:8). And he was finally put to death outside Jerusalem (13:12). All this points to a genuinely human life and death.
But the Christ of Hebrews is divine as well. While the usual New Testament designations of Christ may be found scattered throughout the letter, 90 the author’s favorite title for Jesus is “[the] Son” (1:2, 5 [twice], 8; 3:6; 5:5, 8; 7:28) or its fuller form “[the] Son of God” (4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29). Indeed, it is as God’s Son in the preeminent (divine) sense of that title that the author of Hebrews first introduces Jesus to his readers (1:2).
As God’s “Son” he is the highest and final form of revelation to men, and as God’s “Son” he is higher than the greatest representatives of God on earth, that is, the prophets of the Old Testament (1:1–2), higher even than Moses, who in comparison was only a servant in God’s house (3:5–6). Finally, his name as “Son,” the Bearer of which is represented as (1) the Heir of all things, (2) God’s cooperating Agent in the creation of the world, (3) the Radiance of God’s glory, (4) the very Image of his nature, (5) the Sustainer of all things, (6) the Purifier from sin, and (7) the Lord (of Ps. 110:1) sitting at the right hand of the Majesty on high (1:2–3), is “more excellent” even than that of the highest of creatures, that of “angel” (1:4), whose bearers are only “ministering spirits” (1:14), and whose duty it is to worship him (1:6).
As explications of the content of that superangelic “more excellent name” of “Son,” and not simply new names adduced in addition to that of “Son,” he is the “God” (θεός, theos) of Psalm 45:6–7 and “the Lord” (κύριος, kyrios), that is, the
Yahweh, of Psalm 102:25–27. When he wrote, “To the Son, on the other hand, [God says], ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever’ ” (1:8), the author of Hebrews, as did Thomas, Paul, Peter, and John, uses θεός, theos, as a title for Christ. The controversy surrounding this verse is over whether ὁ θεός, ho theos, is to be construed as a nominative (if so, it may be a subject nominative: “God is your throne for ever and ever,” or a predicate nominative: “Your throne is God for ever and ever”) or a vocative, which would yield the translation given above. With the “overwhelming majority of grammarians, commentators, authors of general studies, and English translations,” 91I believe that the writer applies Psalm 45:6 to Jesus in such a way that he is addressed directly as God in the ontological sense of the word. This position requires (1) that ὁ θεός, ho theos, be interpreted as a vocative, and (2) that the theotic character ascribed to Jesus be understood in ontological and not functional terms.
The fact that the noun ὁ θεός, ho theos, appears to be nominative in its inflected form means nothing. The so-called articular nominative with vocative force is a well-established idiom in classical Greek, the Septuagint, and New Testament Greek. So the case of the noun in Hebrews 1:8 must be established on other grounds than its case form, and that it is vocatival is apparent for the following reasons: first, the word order in Hebrews 1:8 most naturally suggests that ὁ θεός, ho theos, is vocatival. A vocative immediately after “Your throne” would be perfectly natural. But if ὁ θεός, ho theos, were intended as the subject nominative (“God is your throne”), which Nigel Turner regards as a “grotesque interpretation,”92 it is more likely that ὁ θεός, ho theos, would have appeared before “your throne.” If it were intended as a predicate nominative (“Your throne is God”), which Turner regards as “only just conceivable,”93 it is more likely that ὁ θεός, ho theos, would have been written anarthrously, appearing either before “your throne” or after “for ever and ever.”
Second, in the LXX of Psalm 45, which the writer is citing, the king is addressed by the vocative δύνατε, dynate (“O Mighty One”), in 45:4 and 45:6. This double use of the vocative heightens the probability, given the word-order, that in the next verse ὁ θεός, ho theos, should be rendered “O God.” Third, although “about” or “concerning” is probably the more accurate translation of the preposition πρὸς, pros, in Hebrews 1:7 (given the cast of the following quotation), it is more likely that πρὸς, pros, in verse 8 should be translated “to” in light of the second-person character of the quotation itself and on the analogy of the formula in Hebrews 1:13, 5:5, and 7:21.
This would suggest that ὁ θεός, ho theos, is vocatival. Fourth, the following quotation in Hebrews 1:10–12 (from Ps. 102:25–27) is connected by the simple καί, kai, to the quotation under discussion in verses 8–9, indicating that it too stands under the regimen of the words introducing verses 8–9. In the latter verses the Son is clearly addressed as κύριε, kyrie (“O Lord”). These five textual and syntactical features clearly indicate that ὁ θεός, ho theos, should be construed vocativally, meaning that the writer of Hebrews intended to represent God the Father as addressing the Son as “God.” But what did the writer intend by this address? Opinions run from Vincent Taylor’s comment that “nothing can be built upon this reference, for the author shares the same reluctance of the New Testament writers to speak explicitly of Christ as ‘God,’ ”94 to Oscar Cullmann’s comment that “the psalm is quoted here precisely for the sake of this address,” 95 and declaration that “Jesus’ deity is more powerfully asserted in Hebrews than in any other New Testament writing, with the exception of the Gospel of John.” 96
I would urge from the context of Hebrews 1 itself that the Son is addressed as God in the ontological sense. This may be seen from the fact that, as a “Son-revelation” and the final and supreme Word of God to man (Heb. 1:2), he is the Heir of all things and the Father’s Agent in creating the universe. He abides as (see the timeless ὤν, ōn, in v. 3) the “perfect Radiance of God’s glory” and the “very Image of his nature” (v. 3). As God’s Son, he is superior to the angels, such that it is appropriate that they be commanded to worship him (v. 6). He is the Yahweh and the Elohim of Psalm 102, who eternally existed before he created the heavens and earth (Heb. 1:10), and who remains eternally the same though the creation itself should perish (1:11–12; see 13:8). Because he is all these things, it is really adding nothing to what the writer has said to understand him as describing the Son as God in the ontological sense in 1:8. E. C. Wickham and others have suggested that if ὁ θεός, ho theos, is really ascribing ontological deity to the Son, the climax of the argument would come at verse 8, since nothing higher could be said about him. Since in fact the author goes on
in verse 10 to describe the Son as κύριος, kyrios, this further development of the Son’s character becomes the climax, indicating that the former description cannot be construed ontologically. But this objection fails to apprehend the significance of the two terms. While θεός, theos, is indeed a term of exalted significance when used ascriptively of the true God, it speaks only of his divine essence. It is κύριος, kyrios, coming to us out of the Old Testament citation here, that is God’s personal name. In the covenantal sense, it is the more sacred of the two! So actually the writer’s argument, even though it ascribes ontological deity to the Son in 1:8, does not reach its climax until it ascribes the character of Yahweh himself to the Son, indicating by this ascriptive title that the Son is not only the Creator but the covenant God as well. The writer truly can say nothing higher than this.Two of the descriptive phrases above deserve further comment. In addition to ascribing to him the divine work of creating and sustaining the universe, the writer describes the Son as “the radiance [ἀπαύγασµα, apaugasma] of God’s glory [δόξα, doxa]” and “the very image [χαρακτήρ, charaktēr] of his nature [ὑπόστασις, hypostasis].” In the former expression, with God’s “glory” denoting his nature under the imagery of its splendor, as his “radiance” (from ἀ̓παυγάσω, apaugasō, “to emit brightness”), Jesus is pictured as the personal “outshining” of God’s divine glory as the radiance shining forth from the source of light. In the latter expression, with God’s hypostasis denoting his “whole nature, with all its attributes” (Warfield), his “real essence” (F. F. Bruce), or his “very essence” (P. E. Hughes), as his χαρακτήρ, charaktēr (from χαράσσω, charassō, “to engrave, to inscribe, to stamp”), Jesus is described as God’s “very image,” by which is meant “a correspondence as close as that which an impression gives back to a seal” (Warfield), his “exact representation and embodiment” (Bruce), or the “very stamp” (Hughes) of God. Clearly such descriptions intend the ascription of divine status to the Son. Accordingly, it is altogether likely, inasmuch as the Son is the Yahweh of Psalm 102:25–27 who remains forever the same (1:11–12) and who in the person of Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8), that he is also the subject of the doxology in 13:21, to whom eternal glory is ascribed. Certainly, the collocation of the relative pronoun and the title “Jesus Christ” in 13:21 favors such an interpretation.
J. A. T. Robinson, however, has urged that all of these exalted descriptions are true of Jesus as “God’s Man,” with only his functional relationship to God as God’s “son” being “decisively different” from the relationship that obtains between God and other men. 97 He adduces in support of his view (1) the supposed derivation of the descriptions of 1:3 from Philo and Wisdom 7:26 and (2) what he terms “adoptionist” terminology in 1:2, 4, 9, 13; 2:9, 10, 12f, 16; 3:2f; 5:1–6, 8, 10; 7:28. 98 James D. G. Dunn also insists (1) that “there is more ‘adoptionist’ language in Hebrews than in any other NT document,” 99 and (2) that “the element of Hebrews’ christology which we think of as ascribing pre-existence to the Son of God has to be set within the context of his indebtedness to Platonic idealism and interpreted with cross-reference to the way in which Philo treats the Logos,” that is to say, “what we may have to accept is that the author of Hebrews ultimately has in mind an ideal pre-existence [of the Son], the existence of an idea [of the Son] in the mind of God,” 100 and this within a strict monotheism in which the concept of preexistent Sonship is “perhaps more of
an idea and purpose in the mind of God than of a personal divine being.” 101In sum, for Dunn, Hebrews views Jesus in terms of Wisdom language, so that “the thought of pre-existence is present, but in terms of Wisdom Christology it is the act and power of God which properly speaking is what pre-exists; Christ is not so much the pre-existent act and power of God as its eschatological embodiment.” 102
I concur with I. Howard Marshall’s assessment that this impersonal construction of the doctrine of divine Sonship in Hebrews is “very alien to the biblical understanding of God as personal, quite apart from imposing a very artificial
interpretation upon the biblical text.” 103 For while it is true that the Son “was appointed” Heir of all things (1:2), and “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become by so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they” (1:4), this need not be “adoptionist” language. Rather it is language that envisions the glory which became the Son’s following the conclusion of his humiliation in his role as Messiah and Mediator (see Heb. 2:9; Ps. 2:8). Philip E. Hughes concurs that this is how the so-called adoptionist language should be construed, writing on 1:4: It is true, of course, that by virtue of his eternal Sonship he has an eternal inheritance and possesses a name which is eternally supreme—the name signifying, particularly for the Hebrew mind, the essential character of a person in himself and in his work.But our author at this point is speaking of something other than this: the Son who for our redemption humbled himself for a little while to a position lower than the angels has by his ensuing exaltation become superior to the angels (2:9 below), and in doing so has achieved and retains the inheritance of a name which is more excellent than theirs. 104
And if he is said to have “inherited” the name of “Son,” as Bruce declares, this does not mean that the name was not His before His exaltation. It was clearly His in the days of His humiliation: “Son though He was, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (Ch. 5:8). It was His, indeed, ages before His incarnation: this is the plain indication of the statement in Ch. 1:2 that God has spoken to us “in his Son, … through whom also he made the worlds.” 105
All of the so-called adoptionist language urged by Robinson and Dunn can be similarly explained; none of it requires that the Son’s personal preexistence has to be forfeited in deference to an ideal, impersonal preexistence in the mind of God. And even if the writer’s language is that of Philo and the Book of Wisdom, Bruce points out that, his meaning goes beyond theirs. For them the Logos or Wisdom is the personification of a divine attribute; for him the language is descriptive of a man who had lived and died in Palestine a few decades previously, but who nonetheless was the eternal Son and supreme revelation of God. 106
Martin Hengel even declares that the divine nature of the “Son” in Hebrews is … established from the beginning. The approach … is the same as in the hymn [Phil 2:6–11] which Paul quotes; the difference is that [in Hebrews] it is made more precise in terms of the metaphysical substantiality of Christ. 107
Viewed, then, from the scriptural perspective of the humiliatio-exaltatio paradigm, the supposed “adoptionist” passages in Hebrews are not “adoptionist” at all, and the letter to the Hebrews throughout supports the full deity of the Son.
Ftnotes
91 See Murray J. Harris, “The Translation and Significance of ὁ θεός [ho theos] in Hebrews 1:8–9, ” Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985): 146–48; see fns. 56, 57, 58, 59. Also see Harris, “The Translation of םיהלא [˒lh
ym] in Psalm 45:7–8, ” Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984): 65–89.
92 Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 461.
93 Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), 3:34.
94 Vincent Taylor, The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching (London: Macmillan, 1958), 96. Raymond E. Brown commented: “We cannot suppose that the author did not notice that his citation had this effect” of addressing the Son of God (“Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?” Theological Studies 26, no. 4 [1965]: 563).
95 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1980), 310.
96 Ibid., 305. Cullmann is, however, a “functional Christologist” and writes: “We must agree with Melanchthon when he insists that the knowledge of Christ is understood only as a knowledge of his work in redemptive history.… All speculation concerning his natures is … unbiblical as soon as it ceases to take place in the light of the great historical deeds of redemption” (Christ and Time, trans. Floyd V. Filson [Philadephia: Westminster, 1950], 128). He also says: “We come to the conclusion that in the few New Testament passages in which Jesus receives the title ‘God,’ this occurs on the one hand in connection with his exaltation to lordship … and on the other hand in connection with the idea that he is himself the divine revelation” (Christology, 325). In other words, for Cullmann Jesus is not God in himself but only God in Heilsgeschichte (“holy-” or “salvation-history”). 97 John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (London: SCM, 1973), 156.
98 Ibid., 156–61.
99 James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM, 1980), 52.
100 Ibid., 54.
101 Ibid., 56.
102 Ibid., 209.
103 I. Howard Marshall, “Incarnational Christology in the New Testament,” in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. H. H. Rowdon (Leicester: Inter–Varsity Press, 1982), 11, fn. 25.
104 Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 50.
105 F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964), 8
106 Ibid., 5.
107 Martin Hengel, The Son of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 87
(R R, A New Systematic Theology)”blessings
Hi E,
Who are these men?
were they vessels for the Spirit and are their words equivalent to the Word of God?
We only need the bible here.91 See Murray J. Harris, “The Translation and Significance of ὁ θεός [ho theos] in Hebrews 1:8–9, ” Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985): 146–48; see fns. 56, 57, 58, 59. Also see Harris, “The Translation of םיהלא [˒lhym] in Psalm 45:7–8, ” Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984): 65–89.
92 Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 461.
93 Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), 3:34.
94 Vincent Taylor, The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching (London: Macmillan, 1958), 96. Raymond E. Brown commented: “We cannot suppose that the author did not notice that his citation had this effect” of addressing the Son of God (“Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?” Theological Studies 26, no. 4 [1965]: 563).
95 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1980), 310.
96 Ibid., 305. Cullmann is, however, a “functional Christologist” and writes: “We must agree with Melanchthon when he insists that the knowledge of Christ is understood only as a knowledge of his work in redemptive history.… All speculation concerning his natures is … unbiblical as soon as it ceases to take place in the light of the great historical deeds of redemption” (Christ and Time, trans. Floyd V. Filson [Philadephia: Westminster, 1950], 128). He also says: “We come to the conclusion that in the few New Testament passages in which Jesus receives the title ‘God,’ this occurs on the one hand in connection with his exaltation to lordship … and on the other hand in connection with the idea that he is himself the divine revelation” (Christology, 325). In other words, for Cullmann Jesus is not God in himself but only God in Heilsgeschichte (“holy-” or “salvation-history”). 97 John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (London: SCM, 1973), 156.
98 Ibid., 156–61.
99 James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM, 1980), 52.
100 Ibid., 54.
101 Ibid., 56.
102 Ibid., 209.
103 I. Howard Marshall, “Incarnational Christology in the New Testament,” in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. H. H. Rowdon (Leicester: Inter–Varsity Press, 1982), 11, fn. 25.
104 Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 50.
105 F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964), 8
106 Ibid., 5.
107 Martin Hengel, The Son of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 87
(R R, A New Systematic Theology)”Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,00:46) Quote (t8 @ July 13 2006,09:43) John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'NOTE: Both OT scriptures use the same word (elohiym) and the NT ones use the same word (theos). Both these words can be applied to men. In addition to that they can also be applied to angels, Christ, and the Majesty on High.
Context, context, context…..Here is John 10:34 in context:
JOHN 10
30” I and the Father are one.” 31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35″If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, ' I am the Son of God'?Here is a brief summary:
v30 Jesus makes a statement implying unity with their heavenly Father.
v31 The Jews picked up stones to kill him.
v32 Jesus question the Jews for the grounds on which He is being stoned.
V33 The Jews explain that they are about to stone him for BLASPHEMY (a stonable offense in first century Judea).
V34-36 Jesus reasons with the Jews with scripture pointing out to them that in their scriptures men are in fact called “gods” (Elohim). Thus their charges are rendered groundless on this technicality. They cannot legally stone him for inferring he is something synonymous with what scripture ascribes to men.Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6-7. Here it is in context:
PSALM 82
1God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers [elohim]. 2How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. 3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. 5They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6I said, “You are gods [Elohim], and all of you are sons of the Most High. 7″Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes.” 8Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.The rulers (Elohim) in v1 are the “wicked” described in vs 2-4 and the “gods” in v6. These are MEN, magistrates (judges) in the land of Israel. These judges had perverted and abused the authority God had given them (Dan 4:25, 30, 34-37, 5:18-22, Rom 13:1-4), and as a result of this God declared “Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes”. It’s a little unclear and curious why these men are ascribed the title Elohim, some say its on account of their bestowed office and authority, others say it’s a form of Hebraic irony/sarcasm. The general consensus is that IT IS A LITERARY DEVICE. Either way it’s irrelevant to the topic a hand because quite clearly these “gods” (Elohim) are unmistakably human. They are not deity. They are men. Jesus point in John 10:34 was not that “men are divine”, Ps 82:6 most certainly does NOT bear this out, it was that in scripture the word Elohim is occasionally applied to men (BUT NEVER DOES IT INFER DEITY), and the pharisees objections were effectively groundless and He could not be legally stoned.
Also, think about it this way, if John 10:34 teaches that men are divine (including those deemed “wicked judges” who will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”), in the same sense that Jesus is divine, then we have a VERY watered down divinity in Jesus don’t we! In fact the word loses any significance.
When elohim is applied to Yahshua it's a different story….
Check out the context that Hebrews 1:8 is put into:
Quote HEBREWS 1:1-11
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
5For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
And again,
“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?
6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
7And of the angels He says,
“WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS,
AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.”
8But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9″YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
10And,
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”This short passage records these things about Yahshua:
1.He made the world(s) (v2)
2.He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His [Father’s] nature (v3)
3.He “upholds all things by the word of His power” – He sustains the entire Universe. Its estimated that 100,000,000 solar systems exist, each with approximately 100,000,000 planetary bodies and Yahshua sustains every atom!
4.All the angels of God worship Him. Angels are forbidden to worship anyone But God (Rev 22:8-9).
5.The pre-incarnate Word of God is clearly identified as having “laid the foundations of the earth” the Heavens are also “the works of HIS hands” in v10. This is a quote from Psa 102:25 – and is a verse written about YHWH.
6.He is immutable (v12)None of these could be true of an angel, or any being of inferior ontology to Almighty God for that matter. Hebrews 1:8 (the correct rendering) fits naturally and harmoniously within the context of this passage.
The Father calls Yahshua “God” because He is….it's as simple as that.
Blessings
Jesus said gods not GODS, gods a
nd GOD are differentHi Is 1.18,
Looking at your statements“2. He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His [Father’s] nature (v3)”
So clearly he is not the Being that he reflects or represents.
He is the Son of that Being.“4. All the angels of God worship Him. Angels are forbidden to worship anyone But God (Rev 22:8-9).”
So scripture says
” 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. “
What is clear here is CONTEXT , CONTEXT , CONTEXT.
This was when He brought the firstborn into the World and not before. This was the moment God decided that the Son deserved the worship of angels, and not before.
This is a given honour from One Who is greater.“5. The pre-incarnate Word of God is clearly identified as having “laid the foundations of the earth” the Heavens are also “the works of HIS hands” in v10. This is a quote from Psa 102:25 – and is a verse written about YHWH.”
I have no problems with God owning all creation
but allowing others to work in His Name.To wind_slasher52.
Yes there is a difference in god and God, but that difference is not in biblical Greek. The difference is only put there by the translator.Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God (theos) and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.John 20:28-29
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my god! (theos)”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”2 Corinthians 4:4
The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (theos).John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'Hello Nick, I've finally made it to this thread.
I am totally satisfied that Jesus is not the Father. But the Son, the very Word of God is a part of God, as is the Holy Spirit. There is a hierarchical system in that the Father is Almighty God, and He has given Jesus a name which is above every name.
But the part I don't fully understand, but can accept because of my understanding of Scripture (limited tho it be) is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God.
Hi Oxy,
You say
“But the Son, the very Word of God is a part of God”
Is this written?
It is written many times that he is the Son of God
and we know what a son is in relationship to a father,
and we have this on the Highest authority.But you say he is not a son
and God is not a father
on your own aegis?Should we prefer to believe you?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 06 2006,00:09) Hi Oxy,
You say
“But the Son, the very Word of God is a part of God”
Is this written?
It is written many times that he is the Son of God
and we know what a son is in relationship to a father,
and we have this on the Highest authority.But you say he is not a son
and God is not a father
on your own aegis?Should we prefer to believe you?
Far out Nick… I have clearly stated that there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.What on earth possessed you to say otherwise?
Do you try to be awkward or does it come naturally?
Quote (Oxy @ Sep. 06 2006,06:21) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 06 2006,00:09) Hi Oxy,
You say
“But the Son, the very Word of God is a part of God”
Is this written?
It is written many times that he is the Son of God
and we know what a son is in relationship to a father,
and we have this on the Highest authority.But you say he is not a son
and God is not a father
on your own aegis?Should we prefer to believe you?
Far out Nick… I have clearly stated that there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.What on earth possessed you to say otherwise?
Do you try to be awkward or does it come naturally?
Hi Oxy,
I know you CALL Jesus the Son of God but if he is still a part of God guess what?
He is not the Son of God because no son is still part of his own father is he?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
