John 1:1

[Keith]

Desire truth. Psalm 45:7 did not call Jesus Elohim, It stated that he has an Elohim( God)

[DesireTruth]

@Lightenup,

In response to post 948115, would you like some cheese with your whine?

When you answer every question I ask, then you’ll have grounds to stand on to lecture me! Besides, does reading and comprehension fail you? I originally stated “I initially started a long response to what you said, but abandoned it.” What part of that do you NOT understand?

You then whine about me saying to listen to Skobac, Federow, Hajioff, and Singer. You don’t want to know what the Jewish perspective is on their scripture or are you one of those who believes the Jews are liars? The meaning behind “change your world” is to stop looking a one perspective and see what other views are out there, to expand your mind or are you afraid you may learn something that contradicts what you have been told is truth? We may be getting somewhere…

– The LXX is a Jewish translation. Was originally just the Torah and was written in the third century BCE for the Jews living in Alexandria who no longer read or spoke Hebrew and is NOT the same Septuagint we have today.

– The DSS preserve the longer Deut 32:43. Not sure what your point is with this passage; if it’s simply to prove the LXX is superior to the Masoretic…yeah!! Even some Hebrew translations point this out and say it should be “heaven.” Now ask yourself why a majority of translations today have “nations” vs “heaven.” Sounds like corruption and you should get on this ASAP so it gets changed. Then again you have to make the assumption the DSS are the originals and we aren’t looking at a tainted copy.

– Jewish tradition applied Psalm 2 to the Messiah. Please provide a source for this and not Jews for jesus.

– Jewish royal theology calls the king “Elohim.” Sure does; BUT does that mean they are equal to or are G-d (the creator of heaven and earth, the Almighty), as the writer of Hebrews does? Only when corrupt translators capitalize it to make it say what it was never meant to.

– Jewish wisdom literature presents a pre‑existent co‑creator. Again, no source provided; does scripture “present a pre‑existent co-creator”? We’re NOT looking at the musings of man, but what G-d said.

Is this your false “two powers in heaven”? As I dig into this, it was a thought held by some and NOT the majority of the Jewish people in the first century; and how much of this idea was influenced by other religions? This “two powers” idea was something the fledgling christian faith latched onto and later used to developed the false trinity doctrine and by the second century Judaism flat out reject it, calling it heresy. To continually push this was born from Judaism as a whole and was common among the religious leaders, is false; it was an idea held by some. No different than the multiple christian religions out here today; everyone having their own version of truth.

Then you accuse me of avoiding your “evidence”; first you have to have “evidence” and second, you don’t get to control when, where, or how I respond. You have zero idea what’s happening or going on in my life. This place of discussion is a side note to all of it and I’ll spend the time I’m willing to give it at my discretion. To say I’m avoiding this discussion is precious; especially coming from the one who ditched our last conversion because you couldn’t come up with a reasonable response (remember that dynasty and adoption thing)!

[DesireTruth]

@Keith,

Desire truth. Psalm 45:7 did not call Jesus Elohim, It stated that he has an Elohim( God)

“You love justice and hate evil. For this reason God, your God has anointed you with the oil of joy, elevating you above your companions.”

Who is the “you” that is being anointed? The Jesus??? If so, you’re going have to tell me when the Jesus is getting married and all the sons he will have to “carry on the dynasty of your ancestors.” It’s the previous verse where this king is called elohim and does elohim automatically signify it’s a reference to G-d? NOPE!! It can refer to judges, kings, spirits, or other gods. Knowing this, why would it be unusual for the writer of this Psalm to call the king “god”?

The point of this is how the writer of the book of Hebrews corrupts this passage by applying it to the Jesus and equating the Jesus equal to G-d.

This Psalm has nothing to do with the Jesus and it’s NOT messianic. It is a royal wedding Psalm meant for a Davidic King. Context is everything!

[DesireTruth]

@Lightenup,

In response to post 948112

No, I’m reading the words written and the words written, don’t match…can’t have the 60+ different interpretations in front of me at all times. I’m comparing your translation of choice (NASB) to the Jewish Study Bible. If you need to justify your belief by using a translation that has fallen into obscurity, more power to you.

Point 1. I find it funny how you conveniently bring in the Septuagint to prove your stance. If the Septuagint was the scripture used during the first few centuries of the new millennium, why isn’t it accepted as the authority on which all translations are based? The reason is it has become unreliable today; to many changes have been made since it was first written. The “Septuagint” was originally translated from the Hebrew to the Greek in the third century BCE and consisted of the Torah. Over the course of the next two centuries the rest of the Tanakh was translated. The book we have today, isn’t the same book the Jews originally translated. So the book we have today ISN’T the same book of the first century!

Point 2. Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 – the question isn’t whether they are pointing to a Davidic king or not; the question is to whom they are pointing, and they aren’t pointing to the Jesus. The Jesus never served as king, the Jesus never ruled in Jerusalem, the Jesus ISN’T even qualified as the Messiah because he did nothing the Messiah is to do. Since tribal affiliation is pasted down from the father and the Jesus was conceived of the spirit and NOT a man, PLEASE PROVIDE the biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line thru adoption.

Point 3. Psalm 104:4 read first paragraph above.

Point 4. Psalm 45 How is this a Psalm pointing to the Messiah? Notice how YOU haven’t explained a thing!! Then claim this is Jewish tradition; please provide your source! If you had bothered to read the Psalm in its entirety there is NOTHING messianic about it, it’s a “poem celebrating the Davidic king’s marriage to a lovely princess. The psalmist praises the king for his military prowess and commitment to justice, urges the bride to be loyal to the king, and anticipates that the marriage will be blessed with royal offspring.”

You make the assumption the “your throne, O G-d…” is correct; the Hebrew translations of this passage say “your throne is from G-d”, “your divine throne”, “your throne, O judge.” The word here is “elohim”, but is it ALWAYS a reference to G-d? No! Ex 21:6, 22:8-9 judges are called elohim; in Ps 82:1 little “g” gods are called elohim; Ps 82:6 rulers are called elohim; I Sam 28:13 a “spirit” is called elohim. The term “elohim” ISN’T reserved to G-d. Why would you presume in this Psalm the reference is referring to G-d Almighty and NOT a title of authority as the Psalm implies, a king? The entire first chapter of the book of Hebrews equates the Jesus to be equal to G-d and is G-d. Talk about blasphemous!

You go on to say: “Hebrews applies the royal psalm to the Messiah exactly as Jewish tradition did.”; provide the source for this “Jewish tradition”! There is nothing Messianic in Ps 45; it’s to/for/about a Davidic king. When did the Jesus get married as described in this Psalm? She is to leave her homeland, forget her family, and submit to the king. What about the sons she is to bare to carry on this dynasty (what dynasty will be carried on by the offspring of the Jesus)? Prove this is a messianic prophecy pointing to the Jesus; the text DOESN’T SUPPORT IT! Copy and paste theology doesn’t work; context does!

Point 5. Psalm 102 is a Psalm “lamenting the de­struction of Jerusalem and praying for its restoration”; who is said to restore Jerusalem throughout the Tanakh? Somehow this Psalm now becomes the Father applying who HE is to the Jesus?!!? You then say “This is not “corruption.” It is a theological conclusion”; so theology is the basis for your belief, shouldn’t it be scripture? Where’s your scriptural proof G-d said HE needed anyone to help HIM? How small is your god that HE requires a helper; my G-d created everything, from the seen to the unseen, and did it all be himself by speaking it into being?

You continue on saying: “You haven’t refuted the argument. You’ve only assumed the conclusion is impossible.” Wasn’t my original statement of the sited passages not being about the Jesus and offering my thoughts not good enough, what more did you want? If you would place G-d’s word in the context it was written, you wouldn’t be so confused by what it says and have to perform mental gymnastics to make what you believe sound like truth.

Then you say: “If the Son shares the attributes of YHWH (eternal, unchanging, creator), then the Son participates in the divine identity.” REALLY!! If my son “shares the attributes” of me, then my son is me??!? I think my spouse may have something to say about that!

Point 6. I am NOT taking the Masoretic text and calling it superior to the Septuagint. I’m reading the words written in modern translations and comparing them to the Hebrew texts. To say the Septuagint is widely used by Jews is laughable; if you were saying in the first century, do you really think the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem didn’t read, write, or speak Hebrew and didn’t teach from their texts but used a Greek translation instead?!? The book of Hebrews is authored by an unknown and was rejected in the original canon of the Greek Testament.

The bottom line, the argument isn’t over the reliability of the text, it’s the application of the text; the unknown writer of Hebrews has misused and twisted the text from the Tanakh and applying it to the Jesus. When the Jewish text is placed in context, there is NOTHING about a Jesus to be found anywhere.

I find it interesting how the Jewish thought is only important when it confirms your beliefs; everything else, useless and wrong – like who their Messiah is and how they interpret their scriptures.

 

PS

I have a copy of the Septuagint Bible published in 1954 that I am willing to part with; let me know in a PM if you’re interested. I have no use for it anymore.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

You still haven’t engaged the actual evidence.
You’re reacting to translations and modern opinions, not to the manuscripts, not to the pre‑Christian Jewish sources, and not to the logic of Hebrews itself.

Let’s go point by point.

1. SEPTUAGINT (LXX)
Your entire objection collapses here.

You claim the LXX “isn’t the same book” and therefore Hebrews can’t rely on it.
But the issue is not whether the modern LXX is identical to the original LXX.
The issue is:

Did first‑century Jews use the LXX?
Yes. That is historically uncontested.

– Philo quotes the LXX constantly.
– Josephus uses LXX‑style readings.
– The NT authors quote the LXX over 80% of the time.
– Greek‑speaking synagogues used it throughout the Mediterranean world.

Your argument requires believing that Jews in the first century did not use the Jewish translation they themselves produced. That is historically impossible.

You also ignored the central point:

Every “corruption” you accused Hebrews of is simply the LXX wording.
You have not addressed this once.

2. DEAD SEA SCROLLS (DSS)
You said nothing about 4QDeutq.

Deut 32:43 in the DSS contains the longer reading:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

This proves two things:

1. The LXX reading is not a Christian invention.
2. Hebrews is quoting a Jewish textual tradition older than the Masoretic Text.

You dismissed this without comment.

3. PSALM 2 AND 2 SAMUEL 7

You shifted the topic to Jesus’ kingship instead of addressing the actual claim:

Were Jews before Christianity interpreting Psalm 2 messianically?
Yes.

– 4QFlorilegium (Dead Sea Scrolls) explicitly applies Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
– Targum Jonathan applies Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
– Rabbinic tradition (Sukkah 52a) applies Psalm 2 to the Messiah.

You have not refuted this.
You simply asserted, “It’s not about Jesus,” which is not an argument.

Your adoption objection also misses the point.
Hebrews is not arguing about tribal inheritance.
Hebrews is arguing about the identity of the Son, not His tribal inheritance.

You claimed Psalm 45 “isn’t messianic.”
That is irrelevant to the point you ignored:

The Hebrew text calls the Davidic king “Elohim.”

You tried to avoid this by listing other uses of elohim, but that does not change the grammar of Psalm 45:7:

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים
“Your throne, O God…”

Every major lexicon recognizes this vocative reading.

You also demanded a Jewish source for messianic interpretation.
Here you go:

– Midrash Rabbah (Numbers 14:1) applies Psalm 45 to the Messiah.
– The Targum to Psalm 45 interprets the king as the Messiah.
– Medieval Jewish commentators (Kimchi, Ibn Ezra) acknowledge messianic readings.

5. PSALM 102 AND THE LOGIC OF HEBREWS 1

You keep repeating, “Psalm 102 is about Jerusalem.”
Yes — in its original context.

But Hebrews is not claiming the psalm *was originally about the Messiah*.
Hebrews is making a theological argument:

– In v. 8 the Father speaks to the Son.
– In vv. 10–12 the Father applies a YHWH‑passage to the Son.

Your response was:
“God doesn’t need help.”

That does not address the argument.
The question is:

Why does the author of Hebrews believe the Son shares the attributes of YHWH?
Eternal.
Unchanging.
Creator.

You have not answered this.

Your analogy (“If my son shares my attributes, he is me?”) misunderstands the argument.
The point is not “same attributes = same person.”
The point is:

Same divine attributes = participation in the divine identity.

This is a Jewish category (see [Second Temple divine identity](ca://s?q=Explain_second_temple_divine_identity)), not a Christian invention.

6. MASORETIC TEXT VS. LXX

You said you’re “not elevating the MT,” but your entire argument depends on treating the MT as the only valid text.

The problem is:

– The MT is medieval (900–1000 AD).
– The LXX is 1000 years older.
– The DSS confirm many LXX‑style readings.

You also claimed Jews in the first century “didn’t use Greek.”
This is historically false.

– Most Jews in the diaspora spoke Greek.
– Synagogues in Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome used Greek Scriptures.
– Even in Judea, Greek was widely used (inscriptions, coins, documents).

Your argument requires pretending the Jewish world was monolingual.
It wasn’t.

7. “NOTHING ABOUT JESUS IN THE TANAKH”

This is simply your conclusion, not an argument.

You have not addressed:

– Jewish wisdom literature describing a pre‑existent co‑creator (Prov 8; Sirach 24; Wisdom 7–9).
– Jewish royal theology calling the king “Elohim.”
– Jewish messianic interpretation of Psalm 2.
– Jewish textual traditions behind Deut 32:43.
– Jewish use of the LXX.

These are Jewish sources, not interacting with the manuscripts.

You are not interacting with:

– the manuscripts
– the pre‑Christian Jewish interpretations
– the textual variants
– the logic of Hebrews
– the historical use of the LXX
– the DSS evidence

You are interacting only with modern translations and modern rabbis, while ignoring the Jewish sources that existed before Christianity.

If you want to argue Hebrews “twists the Tanakh,” then you must deal with the actual textual data.

Right now, you’re avoiding it.

[Author]

Posts