- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Francis,
I hope you and yours are well. I am enjoying our debate, and I hope you are too.
I understand the reasoning behind your rebuttal of my understanding of Micah 5:4. I do not share your belief that Jesus is God, and therefore see no time limit set in Micah for Jesus to shepherd in the strength and authority of his God.
Quote (francis @ Jan. 04 2011,17:36)
But because I believe that scritpures teach that Jesus (God the Son) is always equal… and has always been equalSince I believe that the Trinity is true and that Jesus IS God…
But because I believe that the scriptures teach that Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are the same GOD… (and thus are equal in essence and substance to each other)… then you have no argument.
So once again, we have addressed the problem – YOU believe that scriptures teach that Jesus is God…………I don't. Now let's get to the solutions.
I have posted a scripture that has Jesus calling the Father “my God”. You have posted one from Hebrews in which Jesus is called by the title “god”.
Hebrews 1 NIV
8 But about the Son he says,“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”First, does God call Jesus “MY God” anywhere in this scripture? No. And is there a scripture where Jehovah DOES call Jesus “MY God”? No. So we have a distinction between two. Jesus said that our God was also his God, and calls Him “my God” even after he is raised back to his original glory.
Your argument is that if God can call Jesus a God or Lord at all, then there is no inferiority implied by Jesus saying “my God”. But there is a big difference between calling one by the title of “god”, which only means “judge” or “ruler”, and calling one THEIR Judge or Ruler, don't you think? Jehovah has called MEN “gods” in scripture, right? So by your reasoning, are those MEN whom He called “gods” also equal to Jehovah, simply because the title “god” was given them?
David was called by the title “King of Israel”, right? And God was also called by the title “King of Israel”, right? But David calls God “MY King” while God does NOT call David “MY King”. Now if Jehovah HAD ever called David “MY King”, then we could imply some kind of “equality” from that. But because Jehovah DOESN'T call David “MY King”, we know that while both share the title “King of Israel”, one is HIGHER than the other, and therefore they are NOT equals.
By the same logic, the fact that both Jehovah and Jesus are called by the title of “god” could at first imply equality. But the fact that Jesus DOES call Jehovah “MY God” while Jehovah never calls Jesus “MY God” eliminates any claim of equality related to only the fact that they both share the title of “god”.
Secondly, concerning Hebrews 1, did you not notice that even while Jesus is given the title “Ruler”, it is made abundantly clear that it was HIS RULER, who has set him up in this prestiged postition? Is Jesus ever said to have set Jehovah up in any prestiged position? No. So once again, we are reminded that God Almighty is the God OF Jesus, for the scripture clearly says that God is Jesus' God. And to me, that means the scripture you posted to EQUALIZE Jesus and HIS God only furthers my point that only one of them is the God, or Ruler of the other one.
CONCLUSION
“God” is merely a title meaning “ruler”. Yes, Jesus has been called by that title. But so have been Satan, angels and men. So we know from those scriptural truths that being called by the title “god” does not make one the “God of all gods”, or “God Almighty”. And that includes Jesus.So now I'm STILL the guy who has no reason whatsoever, at least so far, to think there was a time limit mentioned or implied in Micah 5:4 for Jesus to shepherd in the strength and authority of HIS God. I have offered evidence that there ISN'T a time limit – a scripture that teaches that Jehovah is STILL the God, or Ruler of Jesus even after he returned to his previous glory. And that leads me to believe that since YHVH is STILL his God, then Jesus STILL shepherds in the strength and authority of YHVH, his God.
Do you at least understand WHY I still think this? If YHVH didn't ever stop being Jesus' God, then why would Jesus have ever stopped shepherding in the strength and name OF his God?
Francis, you know you are free to post as much as you want about anything you want. But as much as I want to address the plural word “Elohim”, John 8:58, the fact that “Bible” IS in the Bible, and the many other scriptures and things you've posted, time and clarity will not allow it. I believe I have adequately shown that being given the title of “god” is not any kind of proof of being God Almighty. So please, WITHOUT using words such as “But because I believe that the scriptures teach that Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are the same GOD, then you have no argument“, could you either show me how Hebrews 1 says anything about Jesus being God Almighty, or move on to your next “proof scripture”?
You can't logically use the “God calls him god” argument, for God also called men “gods”.peace and love to you my good man,
mikeQuote (francis @ Jan. 04 2011,17:50) BTW… I enjoy all your posts. You raise some interesting questions and I am having a blast as I attempt to find the truth and formulate an answer. I absolutely LOVE being intellectually challenged. Nothing is more invigorating or more pleasurable. Keep it coming!!!!
Ditto!Hi mike… How are you? Sorry for the delay, but life got in the way and prevented me from responding earlier.
Quote
Mike
I understand the reasoning behind your rebuttal of my understanding of Micah 5:4. I do not share your belief that Jesus is God, and therefore see no time limit set in Micah for Jesus to shepherd in the strength and authority of his God.Francis made the following statements:
But because I believe that scriptures teach that Jesus (God the Son) is always equal… and has always been equalSince I believe that the Trinity is true and that Jesus IS God…
But because I believe that the scriptures teach that Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are the same GOD… (and thus are equal in essence and substance to each other)… then you have no argument.
Mike now comments about the above statements from Francis:
So once again, we have addressed the problem – YOU believe that scriptures teach that Jesus is God…………I don't.I'm glad that we finally agree. If you remember, I have been saying all along that our understanding of Micah is dependent on who we think Jesus is. That is why I kept saying that the PRIMA FACIE question that needs to be addressed in here is whether or not Jesus is God. The answer to THAT question will determine how we understand Micah… and many other verses. Indeed, it will help us to understand the central message of the Bible.
———————–
Quote Now let's get to the solutions. Let's do it!!
————————
Quote I have posted a scripture that has Jesus calling the Father “my God”. You have posted one from Hebrews in which Jesus is called by the title “god”. There are a couple of issues right off the bat that I want to address here.
1)… Notice how you sneaked in your interpretation of Hebrews 1:8 into what you claim I had posted? Almost making it sound as if this is what I had posted to you in response to Revelation 3:12.
The fact is, I never characterized my answer, nor did I post a scripture from Hebrews “in which Jesus is called by the title “god” as you say. I specifically posted Hebrews 1:8 in which Jesus is called God by God.
So right off the bat, you first switched “God” for “god”… and then you sneaked in the words/sentence: Jesus is called by the title “god”. I never said those words and neither does Hebrews 1:8.
2)… I didn't supply Hebrews 1:8 as part of my opening position to answer the Prima Facia question of whether Jesus is God… the very “problem” you identified earlier in your post. Hebrews 1:8 was only a direct response to the scripture you posted that has Jesus calling the Father “my God” (Revelation 3:12). Even so… I still think that Hebrews 1:8 is good evidence to show that Jesus is God.
3)… In response to the scripture you posted that has Jesus calling the Father “my God” (Revelation 3:12), I gave 4 clues about what Jesus meant when He said “my God” while referring to God the Father. I didn't just respond with Hebrews 1:8.
————————
Quote Hebrews 1:8-9 (NIV)
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”First, does God call Jesus “MY God” anywhere in this scripture? No. And is there a scripture where Jehovah DOES call Jesus “MY God”? No. So we have a distinction between two.
And I think this is a false distinction for a couple of reasons.
1)… When God calls Jesus God, as the NIV shows, He says “God” with a capital letter “G”… not “god” with a small letter “g”. The distinction of the capital letter “G” versus the small letter “g” is not lost on you as evidenced by the way you made a big point of switching “God” for “god” in your opening statement above. And it is also evidenced in your use of the word/sentence: Jesus is called by the title “god”.
2)… Neither you… nor I… nor anyone else NEEDS to use the word “my God” when we are speaking of God (or Jesus) as being our God… or when we want to acknowledge that God (or Jesus) is our God. It is an option certainly, but not logically necessary at all. So why does God need to? Why does Jehovah LOGICALLY NEED TO call Jesus “MY God” when it is not logically necessary to do so as evidenced in our own lives?
When I pray, I don't ever use the words “my God” to show God or to show anyone else that God (or Jesus) is my God when I am speaking with another person. Just saying “O God” or “God” is enough when I talk about God to others or when I pray to God. I don't go around saying that God is my God. I don't even go around saying that Jesus is my God. I do say that Jesus IS GOD… and I pray to Jesus as God… and I ascribe all the attributes and nature of God to Jesus… but I can't remember ever using the words “my God” in reference to JHVH or God or Jesus. So this shows that Jehovah DOES NOT LOGICALLY NEED TO call Jesus “MY God”… just as I don't… even though Jesus is God.
Look at the first sentence in Hebrew 1:8… “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever”. That is how I pray. There is no ambiguity at all about what is being said. I wouldn't use the words “o God” unless God is my God or Jesus is my God.
If I were to pray those words out in public, no one would second guess that I consider God (or Jesus) to be my God when I say “O God” or simply “God”. They know who I am praying to and that God (or Jesus) is “my God” without my having to use those words.
Indeed, if you didn't have a predisposition for believing that Jesus is not God in the first place… and you came across ANYONE else saying “Your Throne, O God…”… you wouldn't have any doubts that the person who said those words, considers God to be his God.
It's only an issue with you because you don't believe that Jesus is God and so you make it an issue when there is none to begin with… as we see under any other circumstances in our own lives.
CLARIFICATION: (added about 30 minutes after I posted the original post)
To be honest, I didn't want to change what I said above so that no one would think I was trying to be dishonest in anyway. Instead I wanted t clarify what I said because I can see where there might be some confusion about how I
worded certain things.And so the added red words above are meant to be an addition or clarification of what I was wanting to say. I hope this does not cause any confusion.
——————–
Quote Jesus said that our God was also his God, and calls Him “my God” even after he is raised back to his original glory. And Hebrews shows that God calls Jesus God. So not only is God our God… but Jesus is also our God because God is one in nature and substance and essence. There are not 2 Gods. There is only one God. And so if God calls Jesus God, then Jesus is our God as well because Jesus and God are one in nature and essence and substance.
————————-
Quote Your argument is that if God can call Jesus a God or Lord at all, then there is no inferiority implied by Jesus saying “my God”. Here again you are trying to sneak in something that I never said… and something that the scripture never said.
Hebrews 1:8 never said, nor have I ever argued that “if God can call Jesus a God or Lord at all.” You sneaked in the word “a” in the above sentence suggesting that this is what I was arguing or that this is what the scripture said. But neither is true.
—————————-
Quote But there is a big difference between calling one by the title of “god”, which only means “judge” or “ruler”, and calling one THEIR Judge or Ruler, don't you think? ABSOLUTELY!! There is a HUGE difference between “God” with a capital “G” and “god” with a little “g” which can mean “judge” or “ruler”. God called Jesus God… with a capital “G”… not “god” with a small “g”.
—————————-
Quote Jehovah has called MEN “gods” in scripture, right? Yes, with a small “g”.
—————————–
Quote So by your reasoning, are those MEN whom He called “gods” also equal to Jehovah, simply because the title “god” was given them? No. “god” does not equal to “God”.
—————————-
Quote David was called by the title “King of Israel”, right? And God was also called by the title “King of Israel”, right? 1)… “king of Israel” is not synonymous with “God”. If it was, you wouldn't have had to clarify and bring up David in your above question. And David is not synonymous with “God”.
And yet “God” means “God”. There is only one God… and so there is no need to clarify the word “God” as we need to clarify the phrase “King of Israel”. This shows that you are making a false comparison between “God” and “king of Israel” and/or a false comparison between God and David.
To see the false comparison, all you would need to do is replace “King of Israel” in your above questions with the word “God”. Not “god”… but “God”.
So your questions would now look like this: “David was called by the title “God”, right? And God was also called by the title “God”, right?”
The above is completely wrong because David was never called by the title “God”. So this shows that you're making a false comparison between the title “King of Israel” and the word or name “God”. The two are not even remotely similar by which to make a fair comparison.
But Hebrews 1:8 does say that God and Jesus are synonymous because God calls Jesus God.
Your attempt to compare God with David as the being the same comparison between God and Jesus Begs the question because we are trying to determine whether Jesus is God in the first place. Your use of the title “King of Israel” for David can only work if Jesus and David are the same in substance and essence and nature in all ways. Or if Jesus and David are both created beings.
But because we disagree as to whether Jesus was a created being like David… your analogy is faulty because it begs the question. That is… your use of the title “King of Israel” in relation to God and David rests on your prior belief and assumption that Jesus and David are the same… i.e., both are equal or both have started out as nothing more than a created being.
But because I don't believe that Jesus and David are the same (Jesus is God, David is not), then your comparison doesn't work for me. So your attempt at the above analogy only begs the very question we are trying to answer. That is, the above comparison you are making between God and David is assuming the very thing we are trying to determine the answer to.
TO SUM UP:
Just because David and God was called the “King of Israel”, this does not mean they are equal because we both KNOW BEFOREHAND that God and David are not equal.
BUT… BUT.. BUT… because God and Jesus was called the “King of Israel”, what can we infer from that? Well, if you believe that Jesus is like David, a created being, then to you this does not mean they are equal because you BELIEVE BEFOREHAND that God and Jesus are not equal just like you don't believe that God and David are equal.
But to me… since I believe that God and Jesus are equal and the same, then the fact that God and Jesus are called the “King of Israel” shows that they are equal to me.
Can you see how your analogy… your use of the title “King of Israel” DOES NOTHING to answer the Prima Facie question before us? You are begging the very question we are trying to answer. Your questions ASSUMES the very thing we are trying to answer, and so it begs the question… which is a logical fallacy.
——————————
Quote But David calls God “MY King” while God does NOT call David “MY King”. Yes..and we both know why. It's because we both know that God and David are NOT the same.
But what about Jesus? Is Jesus like David… a created being as you believe? Or is Jesus God as I believe?
Can you see how we view Jesus determines how we view the the phrase “my King” or even “King of Israel” in comparison to God versus David?
God is David's King… but David is not God's King.
And yet, in Hebrews 1:8 God does call Jesus God.
The problem you're having, as I see it… is that you keep thinking that I am somehow arguing that “god” (with a little “g”) is equal to God (with a capital “G”). But of course they are not equal, and that is why David will call God “God” and “King”.
.. but God won't call David “God” or “my King”. And so when we see God calling Jesus God, we can see that even God considers Jesus completely and totally equal in all attributes and in nature to Himself… because “God” does not equal to “god”.——————————
Quote Now if Jehovah HAD ever called David “MY King”, then we could imply some kind of “equality” from that. EXACTLY!!! Just as we can imply “equality” when God called Jesus God.
——————————-
Quote But because Jehovah DOESN'T call David “MY King”, we know that while both share the title “King of Israel”, one is HIGHER than the other, and therefore they are NOT equals. I agree when we are comparing God with David. But the question before us is whether there is inequality between God and Jesus in substance and nature and essence. And your analogy doesn't work because it doesn't answer the question at all. We both know BEFOREHAND that David and God are not equal, and that is why both we know that “one is higher than the other, and therefore they are NOT equals”.
But we don't know if the same holds true between Jesus and God BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRIMA FACIE QUESTION WE ARE TRYING ANSWER IN THE FIRST PLACE. That is why your analogy doesn't' work because it is assuming that God and Jesus are not equal BEFORE you bring up the question of “my King” or “King of Israel”. You are slipping the conclusion into your questions.
You see, I don't know of ANYONE who automatically and uncritically assumes that “king of Israel” must mean “God”… or that “king of Israel” is synonymous in meaning with “God”. When someone says “God” with a capital “G”… people don't assume they are talking about “god” with a little “g” or about the “king of Israel” or about David.
This shows that you are making false comparison… comparing apples with oranges… committing a category fallacy.
Even you understand the importance of distinguishing “God” from “god”, otherwise we would get really confused about what was being said if there is no difference between those words.
The Law of Identity in logic is iron clad. Without it, you cannot even communicate on the most basic level. And in an earlier Post, I have previously given you what I mean when I use the words “God” and “god”.
————————————
Quote By the same logic, the fact that both Jehovah and Jesus are called by the title of “god” could at first imply equality. Neither Jehovah nor Jesus are called “god” with a little “g” in the scriptures. And yet both are called God, with a capital “G”.
———————————-
Quote But the fact that Jesus DOES call Jehovah “MY God” while Jehovah never calls Jesus “MY God” eliminates any claim of equality related to only the fact that they both share the title of “god”. I have already answered this false distinction above.
Not only that… but your above sentence is internally inconsistent on a completely logical and rational basis. For example, you admit that Jesus does call Jehovah “my God”… and yet in the same sentence and only a few words later… you say that they both share the title of “god” with a little “g”. When Jesus called Jehovah “God”… He uses a capital “G”… and yet you say it is a fact that they both share the title of “god” with a little “g”.
which is it?
————————
Quote Secondly, concerning Hebrews 1, did you not notice that even while Jesus is given the title “Ruler”, it is made abundantly clear that it was HIS RULER, who has set him up in this prestiged postition? Sorry for being so dense, but where does the title “Ruler” occur in Hebrews 1:8? Indeed, I couldn't find that title in all of Hebrews 1. Maybe you were inferring the title “Ruler” from the words “Throne” and “Kingdom” in Hebrews 1:8? Let's suppose for arguments sake that this is what you are doing.
Well… I've already explained this through the 4 clues I listed in my previous post to you. And that was: “…different functioning roles in a heirachy do not necessarily imply inferiority.” Scriptures like 1Corinthians shows that there is a functional hierarchy that exists within the members of the Triune God. For example, the Father sends His “Son” Jesus Christ to redeem mankind, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit to indwell Christian believers. So the fact that God would set Jesus up as “Ruler” of a Kingdom, it does not logically follow that this HAS TO MEAN that Jesus is inferior to God.
I think it bears repeating that in the absence of any other verses, then a functional hierarchy or different functioning roles could mean that Jesus is inferior or less than God His Father… or less than and inferior to God… and in that case you would have an argument there. But we do have verses which shows that Jesus is God (and I've listed a couple of them in a previous post)… and so any claim that because God gave Jesus a title of “Ruler”, this somehow MUST MEAN… AND ONLY MEAN but that Jesus is inferior to God… is logically unsustainable and untenable because it does not logically follow.
After all… we are talking about whether Jesus is God or not. And btw, what is God? I gave you my understanding of that word earlier. God… to be God.. has to have a certain nature which incorporates certain attributes of which I listed a few of them.
So… think of it this way. If King David gave someone a title of “Ruler” over some kingdom somewhere… this in no way would imply that this person is somehow inferior or less than David as a human… because both David and this other person are both fully human and share the same nature that makes a human a human. This is what is meant by a functional hierarchy or different functioning roles not implying inferiority or less than in nature and substance.
So Jesus could submit to God… and Jesus could be given the title “Ruler” from God… and yet this would not imply that God's nature and Jesus' nature is different. As the above example shows.
ADDITION: To be fair and honest, I'm adding this clarification around 10 minutes after I first submitted this post.
I wanted to make a note that Jesus' role as a servant could very well be a temporary role until the work on earth comes to an end. I haven't given this idea a lot of detail because at this juncture of the debate, it appears to be irrelevant because whether Jesus is a still a servant or not, does nothing to make Jesus inferior to God in substance and essence and nature as I have been arguing.
I just wanted to add this clarification.
————————————————
Quote Is Jesus ever said to have set Jehovah up in any prestiged position? No. So? A functional hierarchy or different functioning roles does not imply inferiority or less than in nature and substance.
———————————————-
Quote So once again, we are reminded that God Almighty is the God OF Jesus, for the scripture clearly says that God is Jesus' God. And this same God of Jesus called Jesus God with a capital letter “G”. I don't go around saying that God is Francis' God or that God is my God. The mere fact that I pray to God… and point to God and call Him God… and talk about how much I love God… and how I worship God… and how I will often say “O God” in my speech… all this indicates to any impartial and unbiased person that God is “my God”.
It appears to me that you are trying to use semantics and word play to make a point that doesn't exist.
——————————————
Quote And to me, that means the scripture you posted to EQUALIZE Jesus and HIS God only furthers my point that only one of them is the God, or Ruler of the other one. And to me, you're entire argument is a non-sequitur and baseless because it is founded on a false distinction. And above I explained in detail my reasoning for saying this.
——————————————
Quote CONCLUSION
“God” is merely a title meaning “ruler”.Maybe to you… but not to me. I explained what I mean when I use the word “God”. Any being or person who is not “God” with a capital “G” is not God…. but instead they are “god” with a little “g”. And I think the scriptures agree with me. That is why Hebrews 1:8 uses God with a capital “G” in reference to Jesus.
To me… God is not a title, but a being. And the moment you try and use the word “God” to mean both a person and a title, then confusion reigns because this violates the law of Identity in logic. That is why I spent a lot of time pointing that out in my previous posts to you.
So… if you are going to use “God” as both a title and a person/being when you are speaking to me… then EVERY TIME you use the word “God”, you have to be logically consistent and QUALIFY the word each time you use it, otherwise I won't have a clue what you are talking about. The Law of Identity is non-negotiable in logic.
Indeed, you have understood this fact already and have pointed out the difference between “God” and “god” by using them in repeatedly in your post to me. But Hebrews 1:8 uses “God” in reference to Jesus… not “god”. And that is my entire point.
———————————–
Quote Yes, Jesus has been called by that title. Jesus has been called God with a capital “G”…. not “god” with a little “g”.
———————————-
Quote But so have been Satan, angels and men. They have been called “god” with a little “g” because Satan and angels and men do not share the attributes and nature of God that makes God God with a capital “G”.
————————————
Quote So we know from those scriptural truths that being called by the title “god” does not make one the “God of all gods”, or “God Almighty”. And that includes Jesus. Notice how even you are using “god” with a little “g”? That is my entire point. Hebrews 1:8 identified Jesus as God… with a capital “G”. And that is my point.
—————————————-
Quote So now I'm STILL the guy who has no reason whatsoever, at least so far, to think there was a time limit mentioned or implied in Micah 5:4 for Jesus to shepherd in the strength and authority of HIS God. You have yet to demonstrate that Jesus… the coming Messiah prophesied in Micah 5:4… was not God Incarnate… with the capital letter “G”. We both have agreed that the prima facie question we need to answer in here is whether or not Jesus is God… with a capital letter “G”. And until you can demonstrate that Jesus is “god” and not “God”, via scriptures, I believe that you're understanding of Micah is seriously flawed.
And that is why I'm STILL the guy who has no reason whatsoever, at least so far, to think that the prophecy of the coming Messiah in Micah is not Jesus Christ (God Incarnate).
—————————————–
Quote I have offered evidence that there ISN'T a time limit – a scripture that teaches that Jehovah is STILL the God, or Ruler of Jesus even after he returned to his previous glory. There are scriptures like 1Corinthians and John 17 and Matthew 28 (among others), which suggest that there is a functional hierarchy or different functioning roles between the 3 persons of the Trinity. A hierachy or different roles that does not imply inferiority or “less than” between them in terms of substance and essence.
Therefore, God can be the God of Jesus before Jesus left heaven for earth (becoming God Incarnate)… and still be the God of Jesus after Jesus returned to heaven… with no implication of inferiority on the part of Jesus.
——————————————
Quote And that leads me to believe that since YHVH is STILL his God, then Jesus STILL shepherds in the strength and authority of YHVH, his God. In an economic Trinity… a functional hierarchy or different functioning roles between the 3 persons of the Trinity… Jesus could be under the authority of God without any implication of inferiority as to the substance and essence between God the Father and God the Son.
What I see you doing is confusing roles/hierachy with essence/substance. Two men can have different roles within a functiona
l hierachy, and yet both will still be completely human and thus equal in substance/essence with each other.And so God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit can all play different roles within the Trinity… and even have subordinate roles within a functional heirachy in the Trinity… and do so without suggesting or implying any inferiority between them.
If this can be seen on earth between humans (as I have shown), why isn't it possible within the Trinity?
——————————————-
Quote Do you at least understand WHY I still think this? Yes. Because you are confusing roles/hierachy with essence/substance.
——————————————
Quote If YHVH didn't ever stop being Jesus' God, then why would Jesus have ever stopped shepherding in the strength and name OF his God? Better yet… if YHVH didn't ever stop being Jesus' God, and if God calls Jesus God with a capital “G” (Hebrews 1:8)… then why would you keep suggesting that God and Jesus are not equal in substance and essence? A functional hierachy or different roles between them does not imply inferiority or “less than” between them.
——————————————–
Quote Francis, you know you are free to post as much as you want about anything you want. As far as I am aware, I've only been responding to what you bring up. For example, you haven't brought up cars, and so I have not posted anything about cars.
—————————————–
Quote But as much as I want to address the plural word “Elohim”, John 8:58… I brought it up because we were trying to understand Micah 5:4… and I felt we couldn't do that until we dealt with the Prima Facie question of whether Jesus was God or not.
That was the only reason why I brought it up. It wasn't meant to derail the discussion or to introduce material not relevant to our discussion about Micah 5:4.
We can go straight to John 8:58 if you want to, but to be fair to your own stated wishes when we first started in here, we should only go to it if you first wish to drop our present discussion about Hebrews 1:8… and “my God”, etc.
—————————————-
Quote …the fact that “Bible” IS in the Bible… The word “Bible” is NOT in the Bible. Tell me what writer in the OT or the NT ever used the word “Bible”. What verse is that found in?
—————————————
Quote …and the many other scriptures and things you've posted, time and clarity will not allow it. Don't know what you are talking about here.
———————————-
Quote I believe I have adequately shown that being given the title of “god” is not any kind of proof of being God Almighty. I agree with you completely in the way you wrote it. Here you are using the title of “god” with a little “g”… but Hebrews 1:8 used the word “God” with a capital “G”. The law of non-contradiction in logic says that two mutually exclusive propositions/statements cannot both be true at the same time. God does not equal god. So you can't just say that because Hebrews 1:8 says “God”, then that must mean it is saying “god”. Such thinking violates logic.
———————————
Quote So please, WITHOUT using words such as “But because I believe that the scriptures teach that Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are the same GOD, then you have no argument”… I certainly didn't mean to imply arrogance or that I was being dismissive of your opinion and/or beliefs.
What I was trying to get across is the logical truism that IF it was found that the scriptures did teach that Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are the same GOD… that Jesus was God… then by logical force it would follow that your opinion that Jesus was not God… would be false… and so therefore, you really do not have an argument.
But because I did not want to sound “snooty” or dismissive of your opinion, I tried to couch my statement with the words “I Believe” to give it a softer sound.
However… be completely assured that the opposite is just as true as well. Which is: IF it was found that the scriptures did teach that Jesus is NOT GOD… then by logical force it would follow that my opinion that Jesus was God… would be false… and so therefore it is I that really does not have an argument.
Can you see this?
Sorry for any confusion.
————————————
Quote …could you either show me how Hebrews 1 says anything about Jesus being God Almighty, or move on to your next “proof scripture”? Hebrews 1:8-9 (NIV)
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”God calls Jesus God with a capital “G”.
————————————-
Quote You can't logically use the “God calls him god” argument, for God also called men “gods”. Look at your own statement above!! Notice your different use of God and god. In Hebrews 1:8, God does not call Jesus god. Instead, God calls Jesus God.
And where God calls men “gods”… He does exactly that!! God does not call men Gods.
———————————–
God Bless you and your family.
Respectfully Francis
Quote (francis @ Jan. 10 2011,14:45)
As far as I am aware, I've only been responding to what you bring up.
Hi Francis,I will be more “to the point” and use my words sparingly then, for it seems that one from me brings fifty from you.
Quote (francis @ Jan. 10 2011,14:45)
So right off the bat, you first switched “God” for “god”… and then you sneaked in the words/sentence: Jesus is called by the title “god”. I never said those words and neither does Hebrews 1:8.
Francis, did you know, or could you do some research before we move forward, and acknowledge or refute the two following points?1. “God” is only a title that means “ruler”, and has been given to many people in scripture – including the Omniscient Being who created all other beings……….AND……….to mere mortal men, among others.
2. The Koine Greek written language did not differentiate between upper and lower case letters, so any time you see an upper case or lower case “g” in the word “god”, it has been added in by English translators.
Therefore, Hebrews 1:8 IS a scripture in which Jesus is called by the title “god”, like I said. And in verse nine, both Jesus and his god are called by the title “god”.
And we know that “god” means the same in English as “elohim” means in Hebrew and “theos” means in Greek – RULER. And knowing this, we can understand Hebrews 1:8-9 to be referring to the “ruler” Jesus, who has been set above his companions by HIS “ruler”.
So let's FORGET about capital letters, for there were none in the original writing of Hebrews. And let's REMEMBER that “theos” is merely a title meaning “ruler”. With those things in mind, look at the scripture once more. Show me again, without using any captial letters, how Hebrews 1:8-9 is saying anything other than what I just posted and bolded in the paragraph above.
peace and love to you my friend,
mikeHello Mike…
Quote Francis So right off the bat, you first switched “God” for “god”… and then you sneaked in the words/sentence: Jesus is called by the title “god”. I never said those words and neither does Hebrews 1:8.
Mike
Francis, did you know, or could you do some research before we move forward, and acknowledge or refute the two following points?1. “God” is only a title that means “ruler”, and has been given to many people in scripture – including the Omniscient Being who created all other beings……….AND……….to mere mortal men, among others.
2. The Koine Greek written language did not differentiate between upper and lower case letters, so any time you see an upper case or lower case “g” in the word “god”, it has been added in by English translators.
Therefore, Hebrews 1:8 IS a scripture in which Jesus is called by the title “god”, like I said. And in verse nine, both Jesus and his god are called by the title “god”.
And we know that “god” means the same in English as “elohim” means in Hebrew and “theos” means in Greek – RULER. And knowing this, we can understand Hebrews 1:8-9 to be referring to the “ruler” Jesus, who has been set above his companions by HIS “ruler”.
So let's FORGET about capital letters, for there were none in the original writing of Hebrews. And let's REMEMBER that “theos” is merely a title meaning “ruler”. With those things in mind, look at the scripture once more. Show me again, without using any captial letters, how Hebrews 1:8-9 is saying anything other than what I just posted and bolded in the paragraph above.
Mike… the Law of Identity is iron clad and non-negotiable. IF we don't understand what a word was meant by the person using that word, then we can't communicate. This is a simple fact.
For example… look at all the words you've used so far in your posts to me. Well… what did you mean by EACH of those words you used? Well… if I didn't know what those words meant to you… and if I rendered those words that you use differently than the way you rendered them, how can we communicate? The answer of course is that we CAN'T. This should be very obvious.
Now look at what you specifically wrote to me above. You just wrote this:
“God” is only a title that means “ruler”, and has been given to many people in scripture – including the Omniscient Being who created all other beings……….AND……….to mere mortal men, among others.
Well… which is it? If God means “ruler”, then why not use the word “ruler” in the first place? Is there a reason why all the translations (including NWT) uses the word “God” instead of “ruler”? Is there significance to that? (I think there is)
And if “ruler” or “God” can mean both mere mortal men and the Omniscient Being… which is it? What good is it to us if we don't know what the the Hebrews author meant?
You see, I believe that when the translators of Hebrews 1:8 used “God” with a capital “G”, they are telling us that the Hebrews writer was first saying that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses speaking… and that He was speaking to Jesus… who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses. The translators are helping us (who are not experts in Greek or Hebrew) to understand that the Hebrews author was NOT talking about mere mortal men, among others as you put it. Otherwise why not simply say so? Why not translate the word to “god” instead of to “God”? Or why not translate the word directly to “ruler”? Why not tell us that the writer meant mere mortal men and not something else? Obviously, his readers understood what he was saying.
Indeed, isn't that the issue before us? Aren't we trying to understand if Jesus is God or not? Remember, I told you what I meant when I used the word “God” with a capital letter “G”. And I think the translators are telling you the same thing. They are telling us what the Hebrews author meant. The Hebrews author did not mean mere mortal men and so that is why they didn't use “god”… but instead they used “God”.
So for you to make the above statement… without doing what I had asked you to do… (which was that each time you use the word “god” you CLARIFY what you mean by that word)… you aren't saying anything about what Hebrews 1:8 means. Even the translators understand this and therefore they capitalized the word God so that we know what the Hebrews author were communicating to us. The Hebrews author was obviously not talking about “mere mortal men” in Hebrews 1:8.
Instead, you just say that the Greek word means “ruler” and can be applied to both the Omniscient Being and to mere mortal men, among others. Well… how does that HELP ANYONE?? That doesn't tell anyone anything of value!!
Maybe the title ruler can be applied to a lion since lions are called the “king of the Jungle” after all.
Well this of course is all nonsense. The Greeks were very rational people (logic and philosophy) and so they spoke with clarity and meaning and each word they used was understood by the audience at the time. If it wasn't, then no communication was possible.
So as I see it, what you've basically done is skirt the issue before us which is the same issue that you earlier admitted was the “problem” that we needed to address. The Prima Facie question before us is not if Jesus was a “ruler” (who cares if Jesus was a ruler if even Satan can be a ruler or if even an animal like a lion can be a ruler)… but the question is if Jesus is God. That is the issue. That is the Prima Facie question. That is the “problem” which even you have admitted to in your previous post to me.
And the fact is, an overwhelming number of Greek Translators are saying that the author of Hebrews 1:8 was communicating to the reader at the time that Jesus was called “God” with a capital “G” by “God” with a capital “G”… the same God that the Jews worshiped in the OT… the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and David and Solomon.
Hebrews 1:8 (New International Version, ©2010)
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (New American Standard Bible)
But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O God, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.Hebrews 1:8 (The Message)
But he says to the Son, You're God, and on the throne for good; your rule makes everything right.
s.Hebrews 1:8 (Amplified Bible)
But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness).Hebrews 1:8 (New Living Translation)
But to the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice.”Hebrews 1:8 (King James Version)
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (English Standard Version)
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (Contemporary English Version)
But God says about his Son, “You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal powe
r brings about justice.Hebrews 1:8 (New King James Version)
But to the Son He says: “ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (New Century Version)
But God said this about his Son: “God, your throne will last forever and ever. You will rule your kingdom with fairness.Hebrews 1:8 (Common English Bible)
But he says to his Son, God, your throne is forever and your kingdom’s scepter is a rod of justice.Hebrews 1:8 (21st Century King James Version)
But unto the Son He saith, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (American Standard Version)
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (Young's Literal Translation)
and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign;Hebrews 1:8 (Darby Translation)
but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
but about the Son: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice.Hebrews 1:8 (New International Reader's Version)
But here is what he says about the Son. “You are God. Your throne will last for ever and ever. Your kingdom will be ruled by what is right.Hebrews 1:8 (Wycliffe New Testament)
But to the Son he saith, God, thy throne is into the world of world [into the world of worlds]; a rod of equity is the rod of thy realm;Hebrews 1:8 (Worldwide English (New Testament))
But here is what God says about his Son: `O God, you will sit and rule for ever. You will rule in the right way.Hebrews 1:8 (New International Version – UK)
But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 (Today’s New International Version, ©2005)
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.AND THE FOLLOWING!!
Hebrews 1:8-9 (Online Bible New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)
But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”
So what can we learn from the above? None of the translations use the word “ruler”. All the Translations use a capital “G” instead of a little “g”. Why? What other reason is there but the fact that Hebrews 1:8 was NOT referring to mere mortal men ?
So it appears to me that your beef is not with me, but with the vast majority (if not all) translation experts and scholars.
Anyway… if you believe that the wrod “God” in Hebrews 1:8 was not referring to the God of Abraham and Moses and Isaac, then you have the burden of proof to show why you disagree with all the Translators above… even the translators of the New World Translation who are not trinitarians.
I understand that the NWT doesn't say that Jesus was called God… but the point is that they did show that the word “god” needed to be capitlized when speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses. And that is my point!!
Even the NWT did not use the word “ruler”… and neither did they use the small letter “g” in the word “God” when referring to to the God of Abraham so as to make sure that the readers understood that “God” with a capital letter “G” DOES NOT refer to mere mortal men in Hebrews 1:8.
Oh… but maybe you are one of those conspiracy guys like Jesse Ventura, and you believe that all the above translators are deliberately foisting upon the general public THE BIG LIE.
If you are, I would gently encourage you to seek a job with Jesse. He can use someone on his staff like you.
Looking forward to your response.
God Bless
Respectfully
FrancisHi Francis,
I hope all is well with you and yours.
It seems we have a couple of decisions to make here. We must decide whether we are going to discuss the scriptures, (which were written down between about 1500 B.C. and A.D. 100), using the terminology that the writers of the scriptures used – or our 21st century understanding of words such as “god”, which was never used in any original scripture.
Now if I am understanding you correctly, you are currently making a claim that Jesus is God Almighty by using the fact that English translators have called Jesus “God” in Hebrews 1:8. And your claim is that since English translators have not only used the word “God”, but have also capitalized that word, then Jesus MUST BE God Almighty. Am I understanding you correctly?
This is the NETNotes definition of “elohim”, which English translators usually, BUT NOT ALWAYS, translate as “God”:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive – singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) Godplural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically
used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the
supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to
magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:-angels, X
exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X
mighty.Francis, I want you to take note of the very first definition of the word. This is what the word meant. It meant “judge(s)” or “ruler(s)”. Using the word “elohim” did not automatically mean the writer was referring to YHVH. We must use the CONTEXT of the scripture to find this out. For example:
Genesis 1 NIV
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
What this says is that a “judge/ruler” created the heavens and the earth. We must LEARN that in this case, “elohim” is used to IDENTIFY YHVH from the context of the scripture as compared to other scriptures. And we know from many other scriptures that use the name YHVH in referrence to creating the universe and everything in it, that in this particular case, the word “elohim” is identifying YHVH. But this is not always the case:Exodus 22 NIV
8 But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges, and they must determine whether the owner of the house has laid hands on the other person’s property. 9 In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, ‘This is mine,’ both parties are to bring their cases before the judges. The one whom the judges declare guilty must pay back double to the other.Here we have the same word “elohim” being used for human judges, who we KNOW are not YHVH.
Francis, I have MUCH more to say about Hebrews 1:8, but in the name of clarity I will stop here for now and see how you respond.
I want us to be in agreement about these following FACTS:
1. The word “elohim” simply meant “judge(s)” or “ruler(s)”.
2. The word “god”, as we now understand it, is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. And for one to be called “judge” or “ruler” in no way in and of itself would make that one “Judge Almighty”, “Ruler Almighty”, or “God Almighty”. In other words, it is a weak argument indeed to think that because some English translators called one by the word “God”, that one is our Omniscient Creator.
3. The word “elohim” was used of both human judges/rulers, messengers of YHVH, and the Omniscient Being named YHVH.
4. Being called by the title of “elohim” in no way, by the use of the word itself, implied that one was YHVH. One must use the context of the scripture to determine whether that particular mention of “elohim” was identifying YHVH, or another who was NOT YHVH, and therefore NOT the Omniscient Being.
These are scriptural FACTS, Francis. Are we in agreement about them?
peace and love,
mikeMike… it's 1 am my time and I was planning on going into work at 6:30 am. So I'm already having to debate whether or not I'm going to do that now because it's way too late.
I'll tell you one thing though… I am very glad there is another thread for others to make comments about this thread because I was able to read your comments over there to anticipate what you were going to post just now. So I'm pretty well prepared to respond. I just now have to juggle a few things at home and find the time to actually write what I've been thinking about.
God Bless
Respectfully
FrancisQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Dec. 30 2010,22:50) Astaria,
Your new, but you shouldnt post here.
its a debate thread, its between two people.
thats why we have the other thread to comment about this one.
Hi DennisonActually Mike or Francis didn't set any rules at the start of the debate where no one else could respond.
I have just come to realize this. So it seems this thread is open to other comments unless they change the rules in the middle of the game!
Blessings Keith
Please don't be this way, Keith. The title itself says this is a debate between TWO people. If your name is not Mike or Francis, then you are not invited.
peace and love to you though……..funny man,
mikeQuote (francis @ Jan. 13 2011,16:55) Mike… it's 1 am my time and I was planning on going into work at 6:30 am. So I'm already having to debate whether or not I'm going to do that now because it's way too late. I'll tell you one thing though… I am very glad there is another thread for others to make comments about this thread because I was able to read your comments over there to anticipate what you were going to post just now. So I'm pretty well prepared to respond. I just now have to juggle a few things at home and find the time to actually write what I've been thinking about.
God Bless
Respectfully
Francis
Oh Francis,There is so much I'm holding back while busting at the seams to get it all out. I appreciate the fact that you stand and defend your beliefs and so I finally might get a chance to discuss some things that most of the trinitarians want to avoid.
But now I'm stuck. I've been thinking all day about a line of reasoning for the discussion thread – but maybe I'll wait so you don't get a sneak preview.
Nah, on second thought, the logic I will be presenting is irrefutable anyway – no matter how much time you have to “prep” for it.
I am enjoying this immensely, my friend. Keep up the good work.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2011,16:49) Please don't be this way, Keith. The title itself says this is a debate between TWO people. If your name is not Mike or Francis, then you are not invited. peace and love to you though……..funny man,
mike
Hi MikeNo fear, I will respect your wish, even though you didn't respect my wish when I created a different thread here to address the debate.
WJ
Hello Mike…
Quote Nah, on second thought, the logic I will be presenting is irrefutable anyway – no matter how much time you have to “prep” for it. I assure you that i'm not over here spending hours burning the midnight oil sweating bullets as I frantically “prep” for a response to you. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, you did not see any remark in my previous post to you in which I said I was “prepping” for anything.
Like you, I am also bursting at the seams, but as I unambigiously and SPECIFICALLY wrote to you:
“I just now have to juggle a few things at home and find the time to actually write what I've been thinking about.”So there is no prepping going on, it's just trying to find a window of opportunity in my personal and professional life that allows me to write back. It's nothing more complicated than that.
As for the logic you will be presenting which is irrefutable… don't leave me in suspense.
Let's go to the very heart of the matter.
Since you are in the distinct minority among Biblical translators as to what Hebrews 1:8 says, then you have the burden of proof to give us your “irrefutable logic” and show us why they are all wrong, and you are not.
So… why not translate Hebrews 1:8 as you understand it and then explain and defend your minority translation using context and your “irrefutable logic”. I especially look forward to that as I always enjoy a good display of the use of logic.
Respectfully
FrancisMike…
Quote I appreciate the fact that you stand and defend your beliefs and so I finally might get a chance to discuss some things that most of the trinitarians want to avoid.
I don't see any of the trinitarians on the other thread avoiding you or any issue you've brought up. So I'm not sure why you feel that you are finally getting a chance to discuss some things that most of the trinitarians want to avoid. I just don't see the connection you're trying to make.Indeed, they are doing so well, that I'm not even sure why you and I are having this debate. But I'm willing to continue, although everyone else on the other thread are also bursting at the seams and may come to a resolution far quicker than you and I in here because it is going fast and furious over there.
Respectfully
FrancisHi Francis,
I wrote a long response to your last post……………but then decided it is just a diversion from what we are REALLY discussing right now. So I deleted it.
I'll just wait for your response to my post and hold my tongue about the rest. We're debating scriptural truths, not the antics of Keith and Jack and SF, and I shouldn't have even brought it up in this thread.
Patiently awaiting your response,
mikeQuote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,01:40) Since you are in the distinct minority among Biblical translators as to what Hebrews 1:8 says……
We'll see. (Not that it really matters how many trinitarian scholars say it's “black” when the scriptures say it's “white”.)Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,01:40) So… why not translate Hebrews 1:8 as you understand it and then explain and defend your minority translation using context and your “irrefutable logic”. I especially look forward to that as I always enjoy a good display of the use of logic.
Patience, my good man. All I'm waiting to see from my last post are two things:1. Do you agree with the FACTS that the word “elohim” simply meant “judge” or “ruler”; and that the word itself in no way even implied “supernatural being”?
2. Do you agree that persons who were NOT God Almighty were called by that title?
That's really all I need to know from you at this point…………for the simple reason that when you agree (because you have no choice – it is scriptural FACT) that being called by the title “elohim” did NOT make that person “God Almighty”, then your first “Jesus is God” proof goes bye-bye.
In other words, one cannot LOGICALLY or HONESTLY claim that Jesus is God because he is called by that title, when many others who we know are not God were also called by that title.
And once you agree that this is the SCRIPTURALLY FACTUAL TRUTH, I have some bombs to drop about Hebrews 1:8.
So……….do you agree to the above two SCRIPTURAL TRUTHS……….or not?
peace and love,
mikeHuh?
???You're NOT going to defend your translation of Hebrews 1:8 through context and your “irrefutable logic” at this time?
Mike… this is not a game. We are supposed to be having a constructive discussion that will help us to see what Hebrews 1:8 is really saying.
This is your chance to show me that your translation is correct. Forget about my translation. Forget about the trinitarians translation. IT IS YOUR TRANSLATION that I am asking about. I want to UNDERSTAND YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Hebrews 1:8. I want to understand and view the context you claim that proves your UNDERSTANDING of Hebrews 1:8. I want to see this irrefutable logic of yours which will prove once and for all that your translation is correct.
Who cares what my translation is? If my translation is wrong, how does that effect your translation? If your translation is correct, then it will stand on it's own two feet REGARDLESS of what my opinion is about the translation!!! Can't you see that??
Either your argument and rational and logic surrounding your translation can walk on it's own two feet… or it can't.
I mean c'mon Mike… I can say that I believe that Hebrews 1:8 is talking about swiss cheese. Now what? Am I wrong? Of course I am. So now let's see why you believe your translation is correct.
Don't be coy Mike. You are bursting at your seams. You have irrefutable logic on your side. You know the proper context in which to understand the proper translation. You have an opportunity to shine and you finally get a chance to discuss your translation of Hebrews 1:8 that most of the trinitarians want to avoid.
oh gee whiz. Mike, if this is going to be game with you, then I'm not interested.
Mike…
Quote Patience, my good man.
Who is good but God?———————–
Quote 1. Do you agree with the FACTS that the word “elohim” simply meant “judge” or “ruler”; and that the word itself in no way even implied “supernatural being”?
It doesn't matter what I think because it is your translation that you are defending… not mine. I want to know why you are confident that Hebrews 1:8 is talking about a ruler, and not God (with a capital “G”) as the vast majority of translators understand it. I want to understand what is the context you are using to for your understanding of Hebrews 1:8.———————-
Quote 2. Do you agree that persons who were NOT God Almighty were called by that title?
It doesnt matter whether they were or not. What matters is what Hebrews 1:8 is saying. That is the issue here.WHAT DOES HEBREWS 1:8 SAY?
???———————-
Quote That's really all I need to know from you at this point…………for the simple reason that when you agree
It doesn't matter what I agree with or what my opinion is. After all, the opinions of these other translators who you disagree with, they don't matter to you. In spite of their opinion, you are still somewhow able to come up with a different translation than mine or theirs. So what difference does it make what my opinon is?IT IS YOUR OPINION AND TRANSLATION OF HEBREWS 1:8 THAT I'M INTERESTED IN!!!!
Either your argument and irrefutable logic can stand on it's own two feet, or it can't. Your position is NOT DEPENDENT on my opinions!!!!!!!!
——————
Quote And once you agree that this is the SCRIPTURALLY FACTUAL TRUTH, I have some bombs to drop about Hebrews 1:8.
How can my agreement (or disagreement. this is an addition to original) effect the strength of your “bombs”? You didn't need the agreement of all these other translators who translated Hebrews 1:8 differently than you did for you to come up with these “bombs” of yours… SO WHY DO YOU NEED MINE???I'm in my bomb shelter waiting so…
DROP THE BOMBS ALREADY!!!!!!!!!
??? Respectfully
FrancisWhoa Francis………….why so testy? I was patiently awaiting a response from you to my last post about the word “elohim” as directed by this post you made:
Quote Mike… it's 1 am my time and I was planning on going into work at 6:30 am. So I'm already having to debate whether or not I'm going to do that now because it's way too late. I'll tell you one thing though… I am very glad there is another thread for others to make comments about this thread because I was able to read your comments over there to anticipate what you were going to post just now. So I'm pretty well prepared to respond. I just now have to juggle a few things at home and find the time to actually write what I've been thinking about.
By the way, the word “prepared” that YOU used is why I mentioned the word “prep”. Yet it seems to have disturbed you that I mentioned it. Francis, I have been going round and round with the others on the other thread about the simple FACT that “elohim” never had the definition of “Supernatural Supreme Being”. The word means “judge”, and was use of God AND others who were NOT God. Yet you say, “It doesn't really matter what I think”.
Either you agree with the scholars and the scriptures that “elohim” meant “judge” and was applied to people who were NOT God………or you don't. Which is it? It seems to me that you make a claim that Jesus is God because he was called by that title in Hebrews 1:8. Is this correct?
And all I'm trying to do is eliminate any of your Jesus is God “proofs” that rely only on Jesus being called by the title “elohim”. You have been reading the other thread, so you know for a fact that there are scriptures where others besides YHVH have had the word “elohim” applied to them. And if these others were not God Almighty, then there is no logical reason to ever include Jesus into “God Almighty” simply because he had the word “elohim” applied to him.
I'm sure you have many other “proofs” that you are dying to bring to my attention, but Francis, you must honestly admit that being called “elohim” is in no way any kind of proof that Jesus is God Almighty…….for we learn this FACT directly from scripture.
Are you willing to admit this FACT, or will you deny the scriptures that clearly show that having the word “elohim” applied to one is NOT necessarily an indication that one is in fact God Almighty?
Francis, you seem to be anxious about the “bombs” I mentioned. So I will make another post that does away with Hebrews 1:8 as any kind of proof that Jesus is God Almighty. But THIS is the point that I really want to drive home. And I reject your statement that “It doesn't really matter what I think”. It DOES matter for the purpose of this debate. If you can neither ACCEPT the truth I've shown you about the word “elohim” nor REFUTE that truth, then where are you in your understanding of what I'm saying? And where does that leave us in this debate? So I really need a “YES or NO” answer to this question if you don't mind:
Does having the word “elohim” applied to one necessarily mean that one is God Almighty? YES or NO?
peace and love to you and yours,
mikeQuote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,07:24) DROP THE BOMBS ALREADY!!!!!!!!! ???
Pheeeeewwwwwwwwww……………BOOM!
Let's examine what Biblical scholars have to say about the Psalm that was quoted in Hebrews 1:8-9…….
Psalm 45 NWT
6 God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever;CEV
6You are God, and you will rule forever as king. [a]
Footnote A: Psalm 45:6 You. . . king: Or “God has made you king, and you will rule forever.”These are 50+ trinitarian scholars who produced the Contemporary English Version who agree with the NWT that the Hebrew COULD be saying something other than what most of the mainstream translations say.
The footnote from NETNotes says:
Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.”Also, according to NETNotes, the NEB translates it as, “your throne is like God's throne, eternal“. I only point these out as evidence that the Hebrew words are not decisive as to which translation is correct. So at the very least, this scripture is ambiguous as to whether Jesus is even really called by the title “elohim”.
Now, for the bomb:
NIV
6 Your throne, O God,[c] will last for ever and ever;
Footnote C: Here the king is addressed as God’s representative.NET ©
Your throne, 1 O God, is permanent. 2 The scepter 3 of your kingdom is a scepter of justice.
Footnote 2: sn O God. The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking……..AMP
6Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
Footnote A: Psalm 45:1 Jesus spoke of what was written of Him “in the Psalms” (see Luke 24:44). This is one such Messianic psalm. However, the capitalization indicating the deity is offered provisionally. The chapter is written against the background of a secular royal wedding. But the New Testament reference to this psalm in Heb. 1:8, 9, where verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45 are quoted and applied to Christ, makes any other interpretation seem incidental in importance.All of this trinitarian scholarly infomation points to the same exact thing………the “elohim” mentioned is NOT God Almighty, but an “EARTHLY” king.
I especially like the AMP's explanation, which basically says, “We WOULD have used a little 'g' in 'God' because this Psalm describes a SECULAR wedding of a king, but because the Psalm is later attributed to Jesus, and we KNOW Jesus is God, we decided to cap the 'G', because when it comes to saying 'Jesus is God', any other interpretation – despite the fact we KNOW the elohim metioned here is NOT God Almighty – is not important.”
What does all this scholarly information tell us, Francis? It tells us that even IF the Hebrew words DO mean, “Your throne, O god”, the elohim referred to in verse 6 can in no way be construed to be God Almighty. So when the writer of Hebrews applies this passage to Jesus, he is not applying the title of “God Almighty” to Jesus at all, but only the word elohim, which all the scholars agree refers to an earthly king who is a representative OF God Almighty, and not God Almighty Himself.
And what's sad is that I even had to go through all this in the first place. Because as I already showed you, verse 7 clearly tells us that it was the Elohim OF this other elohim who placed the first elohim in such a high position. That in itself should be enough to tell any logical person that the first elohim mentioned could not possibly be God Almighty. God Almighty does not have a God who places him high or low.
Which brings me back to my first verse:
Revelation 3:12 NIV
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.Francis, does God Almighty have someone He refers to as “my God”? Jesus does.
Listen Francis, no matter how you slice it, Hebrews 1:8 is not any kind of proof text that teaches Jesus is God Almighty. Nor is it even conclusive that Jesus is called “elohim” at all. So your use of it to rebut Rev 3:12 by claiming the Father also in effect called Jesus “my God” has been solidly refuted.
So I'm still waiting for the scriptural proof that Jesus no longer reigns in the strength and authority of his God, as Micah 5:4 states.
Hebrews 1:8 does nothing for you………what else do you have?
peace and love,
mikeHello Mike…
Quote Therefore, CAN it refer to God Almighty? Of course. CAN it also refer to those who AREN'T God Almighty? Of course. So does the word itself MEAN “God Almighty”? Not a chance. Well Mike, I was being prepared for bombs, and all I got were marshmellows being thrown at me.
Anyway… not once have you given me your translation for Hebrews 1:8. If you have, then I have somehow missed it. Would you mind giving me your translation for Hebrews 1:8… or the translation which you feel is the correct version?
As I'm sure you know, it is meaningless to attack a position/translation if you can't come up with a contrary position/translation that you feel better satisfies the evidence and current state of scholarship.
So I'm asking for YOUR translation that YOU believe is the truth. Which translation are you defending? I know which translation you are attacking, but I don't know which one you are defending.
What I'm going to do, after I receive your translation, is give you a two part response to your latest posts.
The first post (first part) will take your above answers and and see how the information and conclusion you've come to, ties into Revelation 3:12 which you brought up earlier, and which is the reason for Hebrews 1:8 being brought up by me. I want to tie everything together so that we can get an overall picture of where we started, and where we are currently since your last post in here.
I want to do that because I want to try and tie in the relevancy of your conclusions into our discussion. I want to make sure (for my sake at the very least) that we keep focused.
Now… the 2nd post (part two) will come a couple of days after, and in it I want to point out what I see as some difficulties and flaws with your defense of your translation… and with your objections to the current translation held by over 20 translators.
In the 2nd post, I will also lay down my defense of Hebrews 1:8.
I tend to be very deliberate and careful in how I want to present my case, and now that we are at a crucial part in our debate… I want to take your answers seriously, and give it the response it deserves… a response done with care and deliberateness.
You've given me a lot of information, and I want to digest it.
But first, I would like to see the translation of Hebrews 1:8 which you are defending.
God Bless
Francisp.s… you indicated earlier that I had somehow threw a compliment of yours back into your face. I've been scratching my head ever since trying to find out when that occured. Could you tell me when that happened?
p.s.s… For clarification purposes… does “God” equal to God Almighty in your eyes? When the translators specifically and carefully and deliberately use the word “God” with a capital “G” in their translations… to what are they referring? Isn't it true that “God” with a capital “G” refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
