- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I hope this thread would be in the format of an Instant Messaging dialogue, where a premise is made, and from then on, the dialogue is PRIMARILY done through scripture answering, interpreting, refuting, correcting or affirming the original premise. The goal hopefully is to construct a right understanding of scripture using less of our own words.
-0-
In asserting the Pemise of the TRINITY DOCTRINE, that Christ is the same substance and being as the Father and so equally GOD, WJ, wrote on page 13 of the Inference topic/thread:
Quote Heb 1:8 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.
Refutation:
Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Exd 7:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
1Cr 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.Quote (Cubes @ May 01 2007,06:13) I hope this thread would be in the format of an Instant Messaging dialogue, where a premise is made, and from then on, the dialogue is PRIMARILY done through scripture answering, interpreting, refuting, correcting or affirming the original premise. The goal hopefully is to construct a right understanding of scripture using less of our own words. -0-
In asserting the Pemise of the TRINITY DOCTRINE, that Christ is the same substance and being as the Father and so equally GOD, WJ, wrote on page 13 of the Inference topic/thread:
Quote Heb 1:8 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.
Refutation:
Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Exd 7:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
1Cr 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
CubesThere is no more agency!
God has come in the flesh.
Would you make Moses as an agent of God to be equal to the Word.
Do you believe the scriptures or not?
Jn 1:1 and Heb 1:8 is unambiguous.
There is no example of an Angel of God or a man of God found in the NT scriptures that ascribes the word “Theos” to except the Father and the Son.
Please show me one.
Concerning the New Testament word “Theos”.
1336 times the word “Theos” is found in the New Testament scriptures.
All were translated “God” referring to the Father and Yeshua, except 13 times for “False gods” including satan and the man of sin and man, and eight times Godly, and once Yeshua was quoting the Psalmist which was still under Old covenant law. Agency was still in play.
We know Paul used the word to describe the opposite of God, satan.
We know Yeshua is true, therefore he is “True Theos”.
So unless you resort to “Polytheism” which we know the Apostles were pure Monotheist, then you have two options…
1.You accept what the scrptures say.
Or
2.You deny them or twist them to say what you want.
I checked them all. Not once out of all 1336 times is there a mention of any Angel of God with the word “Theos” being ascribed to them.
*Neither is there any example of the word “Theos” ascribed to a living man or king or lord of the most high *in that day* other than Yeshua*.
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.John knew exactly what the word “Theos” meant to him, because in every other place the word is used for Yeshua, he used this word “Theos” when he could have used another?
Do you think he would create this kind of confusion by using “Theos” in John 1:1 as well as John 20:28?
Why didnt he use “chrematizo, Acts 10:22, Heb 11:7”
or
“theios, 2 Pet 1:3,4, which by the way is used by Peter for divine nature and power, which many try to force this word to mean that we are equal to Yeshua or the Father in being. Yeshua *is* divine, “Theos”, not “Theios” which is what we share”, This word is found only these 3 times in scripture. Which describes his nature and not his being.
or
“theotes, Col 2:9”
or
“theiotes” Rom 1:20″
Why didnt John use one of these words instead of “Theos” in John 1:1?
Why didn't Paul or Peter or Timothy or Titus, or the writer of Hebrews 1:8 use one of the other words?
You talk about being consistant with the word “Theos”.
It seems to me that being consistant with “Theos” is exactly what over 500 Greek and Hebrew scholars did when they translated John 1:1.
So do you believe the Scriptures and the Apostles or not?
Concerning your Unitarian interpretation of 1 Cor 8:6,
I paste another previous post…
Here is what Paul the Hebrew of the Hebrews a strict monotheistic Jew acknowledged…
1 Cor 8:
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and *that there is no God but one*.
5 For even *if there are so-called gods* whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, (we know there is only “one Lord, the Father and Yeshua/YHWH).
6 yet *for us there is but one God*, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 *However not all men have this knowledge*; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat {food} as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.Let’s break it down.
Vrs 4.
Paul a strict Monotheist, speaks of Idols as being “no such thing” in the world, and that “there is NO GOD but ONE”Vrs 5.
Paul says they are “So called gods”, and many of them “gods and lords. We know there is only “ONE LORD” the Father and Yeshua”. Do you object to that?Vrs 6.
Paul declares “Yet for us there is but *ONE GOD*”. If you say Jesus is “A” God and he is your “LORD”, then that means also he is your God.Then in the same breath Paul goes on to say the “ONE GOD” is the Father, from whom are all things “and” the Lord Jesus Christ “by whom are all things” and we exist through Him.
If we “by Jesus” exist through him and are Gods children and belong to Jesus or God then Jesus is also God. Can you see that?
Vrs 7.
Then Paul declares that not all men have this knowledge.
Then he goes back to the Idols he was speaking of in Vrs 4.What knowledge do men lack?
It’s the knowledge that there are “so called gods” and “idols” that men worship but “for us” there is only *ONE God*, and *ONE LORD*, The Father and Yeshua!
The context plainly shows the contrast of other so called “gods and lords” with the Father and Yeshua.
Tell me , why would Paul speaking to Corinth who was battling with Polytheism and Paganism mention in the same breath The Father and Lord Jesus sharing the same attributes?
He couples them together between scriptures condemning Idol worship and Polytheism.
So truly this Jesus is as the scriptures proclaims!
He is God in the flesh reconciling the world unto himself
He is YHWH, the LORD from heaven!
But that is another topic!
Blessings!
Hi W,
You say
“God has come in the flesh.”
But Scripture says in 1Jn4
“1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. “
and 2Jn
“7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.8Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. “
Christ is our Lord and not our God so should we follow you?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2007,12:26) Quote (Cubes @ May 01 2007,06:13) I hope this thread would be in the format of an Instant Messaging dialogue, where a premise is made, and from then on, the dialogue is PRIMARILY done through scripture answering, interpreting, refuting, correcting or affirming the original premise. The goal hopefully is to construct a right understanding of scripture using less of our own words. -0-
In asserting the Pemise of the TRINITY DOCTRINE, that Christ is the same substance and being as the Father and so equally GOD, WJ, wrote on page 13 of the Inference topic/thread:
Quote Heb 1:8 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.
Refutation:
Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Exd 7:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
1Cr 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
CubesThere is no more agency!
God has come in the flesh.
Would you make Moses as an agent of God to be equal to the Word.
Do you believe the scriptures or not?
Jn 1:1 and Heb 1:8 is unambiguous.
There is no example of an Angel of God or a man of God found in the NT scriptures that ascribes the word “Theos” to except the Father and the Son.
Please show me one.
Concerning the New Testament word “Theos”.
1336 times the word “Theos” is found in the New Testament scriptures.
All were translated “God” referring to the Father and Yeshua, except 13 times for “False gods” including satan and the man of sin and man, and eight times Godly, and once Yeshua was quoting the Psalmist which was still under Old covenant law. Agency was still in play.
We know Paul used the word to describe the opposite of God, satan.
We know Yeshua is true, therefore he is “True Theos”.
So unless you resort to “Polytheism” which we know the Apostles were pure Monotheist, then you have two options…
1.You accept what the scrptures say.
Or
2.You deny them or twist them to say what you want.
I checked them all. Not once out of all 1336 times is there a mention of any Angel of God with the word “Theos” being ascribed to them.
*Neither is there any example of the word “Theos” ascribed to a living man or king or lord of the most high *in that day* other than Yeshua*.
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.John knew exactly what the word “Theos” meant to him, because in every other place the word is used for Yeshua, he used this word “Theos” when he could have used another?
Do you think he would create this kind of confusion by using “Theos” in John 1:1 as well as John 20:28?
Why didnt he use “chrematizo, Acts 10:22, Heb 11:7”
or
“theios, 2 Pet 1:3,4, which by the way is used by Peter for divine nature and power, which many try to force this word to mean that we are equal to Yeshua or the Father in being. Yeshua *is* divine, “Theos”, not “Theios” which is what we share”, This word is found only these 3 times in scripture. Which describes his nature and not his being.
or
“theotes, Col 2:9”
or
“theiotes” Rom 1:20″
Why didnt John use one of these words instead of “Theos” in John 1:1?
Why didn't Paul or Peter or Timothy or Titus, or the writer of Hebrews 1:8 use one of the other words?
You talk about being consistant with the word “Theos”.
It seems to me that being consistant with “Theos” is exactly what over 500 Greek and Hebrew scholars did when they translated John 1:1.
So do you believe the Scriptures and the Apostles or not?
Concerning your Unitarian interpretation of 1 Cor 8:6,
I paste another previous post…
Here is what Paul the Hebrew of the Hebrews a strict monotheistic Jew acknowledged…
1 Cor 8:
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and *that there is no God but one*.
5 For even *if there are so-called gods* whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, (we know there is only “one Lord, the Father and Yeshua/YHWH).
6 yet *for us there is but one God*, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 *However not all men have this knowledge*; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat {food} as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.Let’s break it down.
Vrs 4.
Paul a strict Monotheist, speaks of Idols as being “no such thing” in the world, and that “there is NO GOD but ONE”Vrs 5.
Paul says they are “So called gods”, and many of them “gods and lords. We know there is only “ONE LORD” the Father and Yeshua”. Do you object to that?Vrs 6.
Paul declares “Yet for us there is but *ONE GOD*”. If you say Jesus is “A” God and he is your “LORD”, then that means also he is your God.Then in the same breath Paul goes on to say the “ONE GOD” is the Father, from whom are all things “and” the Lord Jesus Christ “by whom are all things” and we exist through Him.
If we “by Jesus” exist through him and are Gods children and belong to Jesus or God then Jesus is also God. Can you see that?
Vrs 7.
Then Paul declares that not all men have this knowledge.
Then he goes back to the Idols he was speaking of in Vrs 4.What knowledge do men lack?
It’s the knowledge that there are “so called gods” and “idols” that men worship but “for us” there is only *ONE God*, and *ONE LORD*, The Father and Yeshua!
The context plainly shows the contrast of other so called “gods and lords” with the Father and Yeshua.
Tell me , why would Paul speaking to Corinth who was battling with Polytheism and Paganism mention in the same breath The Father and Lord Jesus sharing the same attributes?
He couples them together between scriptures condemning Idol worship and Polytheism.
So truly this Jesus is as the scriptures proclaims!
He is God in the flesh reconciling the world unto himself
He is YHWH, the LORD from heaven!
But that is another topic!
Blessings!
Less of our own words, brother.Please come again.
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So far WE are as uneternal gods returning to dust?
But Jesus was Incoruptible eternal and full of knowledge and wisdom prolonged his life
As the first begotten of God from dust prison and judgement.Hi charity ,
Made in the image as inner man and cursed with too much information but never having eternal life till Christ came sharing our flesh and was given the fruit of the tree of life to share with us.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2007,09:18) Hi charity ,
Made in the image as inner man and cursed with too much information but never having eternal life till Christ came sharing our flesh and was given the fruit of the tree of life to share with us.
NHShow me were Jesus shared the tree of life with us!
Hi W,
Forgive my allegory.
In Christ, the Son of God, is eternal life as with the fruit of the tree.
Christ was the fountain men came to to drink at that they too would find within fountains upwelling to eternal life.
The trees of life are found for men
Revelation 2:7
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.Rev 22
1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Ez 47
'12And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.'There are many more scriptures that prove the Deity of Christ. Here is a few!
Jn 1:1
In the beginning *God* created the heaven and the earth.Isa 42:5
*Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out*; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:Isa 45:12
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: *I, even my hands*, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.Isa 45:18
For thus saith the *LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it*; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and *there is none else*.Jn 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 *All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made*.10 He was in the world, and *the world was made by him*, and the world knew him not.
14 And the *Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us*, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Phil 2:
6 who, although He existed in the *form of God*, did not regard “equality” with God a thing to be grasped (held on to),1 Cor 15:47
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is *the Lord from heaven*.Col 1:
16 For *by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist*.Hebrews 1:
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*. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature (Substance), 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,;Heb 1:8
But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.Heb 1:10
And, *YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;Jn 20:
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, *My Lord and my God.*
29 Jesus saith unto him, *Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed*: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.One God the Lord, “by himself” made the heavens and the earth, there is “no one else beside him”.
Hi W,
So you hold that we have three deities.
Deities are gods-see Websters.
But is there not ONE GOD
even in the trinity view?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2007,11:02) Hi W,
So you hold that we have three deities.
Deities are gods-see Websters.
But is there not ONE GOD
even in the trinity view?
NHLOL
How did you arrive at three deitys in my previous post?
You just love to argue dont you?
Taken from:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/hebrews1.8.htmHi cubes. I'm not completely certain what your plan was for this thread, but I imagine it's already fallen apart. So I'm just going to post “whatever” as most I believe are probably doing.
The New World Translation reads here:
“But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.”
One website critic asserts: “They[the NWT]changed Heb[rews] 1:8 from “…Thy throne, O GOD, is forever and ever…” to “GOD is your throne forever and ever…”
The Father calls the Son GOD in this passage, but not in the NWT”This is all that is said on the matter! The critic does not mention that other translations render Hebrews 1:8 the same way as the New World Translation implying that the New World Translation is alone in so doing. He does not go into why it cannot be so translated. Is he, and others who make similiar charges, really informing their visitors/readers fully? So we do hope those who read/come across this rather absurd criticism on the www or in books, will consider the following:
Other translations apply the term “God” here to the Son by saying:
“About the Son, however, God said: “Your kingdom, O God,will last forever! You will rule over your people with justice.”-Todays English Version.
A footnote says: “…..or God is your kingdom.”-agreeing with NWT here.However, some may have a question regarding the Greek of this verse. QEOS is in the Nominative Case and has a Nominative article. How is it possible then to translate it as a vocative? QEOS is in the nominative case. However, there is a syntactical category called the “nominative for vocative” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 56) or the “nominative instead of vocative” (BDF, 81). What happened is that as the Greek language changed the nominative began to be used in place of the vocative (see BDF, 81, section 147), which is what some believe is happening here at Hebrews 1:8.
It is possible that hO QRONOS SOU hO QEOS can be translated with “God” either as a vocative “your throne, O, God, is forever…”, as in most English versions, or nominative subject of an equative construction “God is your throne…” or predicate nominative of an equative construction “your throne is God…” If one consults the commentaries the first option is the most popular one. But that could be attributed to the theology of the commentators(they are all most to a man trinitarian)more than anything else.The fact is that all should recognise that all three exegetical options given above are possible here.In answer to a question, “Is Jesus the God at Hebrews 1:8?” an answer appeared in The Watchtower, 1984, March 1st, p.31, which states,
“No. The weight of the evidence indicates that it is Jehovah. According to the New World Translation, Hebrews 1:8 says: “But with reference to the Son: “God is your [the Son] throne forever and ever.”” This shows that Jesus' throne, his office or authority as a sovereign, has its source in Jehovah the Almighty God. However, believers in the Trinity prefer the Authorized Version, or King James Version, which renders Hebrews 1:8 this way: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” Thus, they feel that Jesus is shown to be the same as Almighty God. Why is this not correct? First, note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him. Secondly, it should be noted that Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God and neither did the writer of Hebrews think that Jesus was Almighty God. Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said: “It is scarcely possible that[Elohim,God]in the original can be addressed to the king. . . . Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God.'” With good reason, therefore, the New World Translation and a number of other translations render Hebrews 1:8 as, “God is your throne.” (See An American Translation, Moffatt; also the marginal reading in American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version and The New English Bible.) This makes it clear that the “Son,” Jesus Christ, has a God who is higher than he is.”
It may well be beneficial to quote Westcott entirely here. In The Epistle to the Hebrews, p.25, 26 he says:
“[Hebrews 1:]8 pros de…] in reference to…The words of the Psalm are not addressed directly to the Son though they point to Him. “It is not necessary to discuss here in detail the construction of the original words of the Psalm. The LXX. admits of two renderings:[ho theos]can be takne as a vocative in both cases (thy throne,O God,…therefore,O God,thy God…)or it can be taken as the subject(or the predicate)in the first case (God is Thy throne,or Thy throne is God…),and in apposition to [ho theos sou]in the second case(Therefore God,even Thy God…,). The only important variation noted in the other Greek versions is that of Aquila, who gave the vocative [thee]in the first clause…..and, as it appears also in the second. …It is scarcely possible that [ ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos]is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne(or, Thy throne is God), that is 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock'; and to take [ho theos]as in apposition in the second clause.
“The phrase 'God is Thy throne' is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is no way more strange than Ps.lxvi.3[Lord]be Thou to me a rock of habitation…Thou art my rock and fortress.Is.xxvi.4(R.V.) In the LORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock. Ps.xc.1 Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place. Ps.xci.1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most high…v.2 I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress, v.9; Deut.xxx111.27 The eternal God is thy dwelling-place. Comp. Is. xxii. 23 …..
“It is commomly supposed that the force of the quotation lies in the divine title (ho theos) which, as it is held, is applied to the Son. It seems however from the whole form of the arguement to lie rather in the description which is given of the Son's office and endowment. The angels are subject to constant change, He has a dominion for ever and ever; they work through material powers, He – the Incarnate Son – fulfills a moral sovereignty and is crowned with unique joy. Nor could the reader forget the later teaching of the Psalm on the Royal Bride and the Royal Race. In whatever way then [ho theos] is taken, the quotation establishes the conclusion that the writer wishes to draw as to the essential difference of the Son and the angels. Indeed it might appear to many that the direct application of the divine Name to the Son would obscure the thought.”
The Interpreter's Bible notes:
“[Hebrews 1]8-9. Thy throne….is for ever and ever (from Ps. 45:6-7) : The sense in which the author uses this quotation is clear. It means for him that the Son has divine authority in contrast to the subservient role of the angels. As the opening words stand in our translations, they require the application of [ho theos], “O God,” to the Son. We have noted that this epistle does not elsewhere give the name “God” to the Son in this unrelieved fashion, and vs.9 would seem to suggest another reading. The alternative is to read, “God is thy thr
one” or “thy throne is God.” The usual translation is not impossible, however, in a poetic passage.(p.605-606) (Underlining added.)George Wesley Buchanan writes in his translation and commentary:
“8 The introduction to the quotation in this verse is exactly as it is in vs.7. The pro…ton huion means “[with refernce]to the Son” and not just “to….the Son.” This is important for understanding the author's use of quotations involved. Some scholars have taken this as a direct address to the Son and therefore believed the author of Hebrews thought Jesus was God. An old example of this reasoning is Turner, who said, “The only correct translation then is, 'Thy throne O God.' As thid title is never applied to any human monarch, it must relate to some superhuman personage….The messiah is really God, but but is spoken of at the same time in such a way as presumes a human nature also.” More recently Montefiore said, “He is superior to them, for he has been raised above them when he was annointed by God.” This is not a necessary conclusion. As the pros in vs.7 means “in reference to,” and it's seems most likely that pros in vs.8 should be rendered the same way, so it is in reference to the Son that the author quoted a scripture dealing with the eternity of God's throne, upon which the Son would sit. When Solomon, who was God's Son(II Sam.7:14),ruled over the Lord's kingdom(I Chron.29:11), he sat on the Lord's throne (´al kisse´ Yhwh) (I Chron 29:23; see also Enoch 51:3; 55;4; 61:8; 62:2-3,5; 69:26-27,29).That did not mean that Solomon was God. It means that Solomon ruled over God's kingdom when he ruled over Palestine, and he sat on God's throne when he ruled from Jerusalem. Therefore, it is just as proper to speak of the eternity of God's throne with reference to the son Jesus who was to sit on it as it was to speak of God's throne when Solomon, the son, sat on it. The point of the authors arguement is that, in contrast to the angels, who are as temporal as wind and fire, the Son was destined for a throne which was “forever and ever,” as the scripture says. At the end of the verse “his” has the stronger textual support…, although almost all other texts have “your”(sou) in conformity to the LXX(and MT). The RSV renders Ps.45:6, “Your divine throne”- the most likely rendering when the next line continues “Your royal scepter…..” and the address is clearly to the king. The same would be here true in Heb.1:8 if the reading “your” were accepted at the end of the verse. It seems more likely that the author of Hebrews spoke only in reference to the Son when he addressed God, mentioning the eternity of the throne on which the Son would sit. He then changed the pronoun from second to third person in the next line to describe his(the Son's)kingdom. “The staff” was the symbol of royal power and authority. As king, he was the highest judge in the land, so this staff was also a symbol of his legislative authority. Psalm 45 was a poem addressed to a king,not to God.The king,whom God had blessed,was urged to gird on his sword in glory and ride victoriously(Ps.45:3-4). His enemies were destined to fall before his sharp arrows(Ps.45:5). In the Psalm the king was also addressed with reference to his throne and his scepter, but the words could be understood as addressed to God. Since the author of Hebrews wanted to use this royal Psalm,he had to deal with this difficulty in some way,just as commentators do today. He seems to have handled the problem by speaking in reference to the Son,just as he had spoken in reference to the angels(1:7) just before. Then,in reference to the Son he spoke of God's throne and the Son's kingdom. Next, in the following verse, he continued to deal with the Son in direct address as indicated by the Psalm quotation. It seems more likely that the author of Hebrews sensed a difficulty here than he intentionally confused the Son with God. For the author, the Son was the first-born,the apostle of God,the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature(1:3,6), but he was not God himself.-To The Hebrews, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, pp.20-21.
The critic, quoted above, of the New World Translation's rendering of Hebrews 1:8, went on to say, in an e-mail to us: “Hebrews 1:8 butchered to suit your teaching.” We believe the above has belied that claim to be wholly without warrant or foundation. Part of a criticism of the New World Translation at Hebrews 1:8 reads:
“The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.”
This does not present the facts that have been presented above. One could easily say that those translations that read at Hebrews 1:8 the Son is “God,” do not “permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is not God”! This kind of criticism of the New World Translation at this place also impugns the reasons why scholars such as Edgar Goodspeed, James Moffatt, Steven Byington and the NT version The Twentieth Century New Testament -none of which were influenced by a “theology” similar with Jehovah's witnesses.
A.T.Robertson remarking on whether QEOS in Hebrews 1:8 is a nominative or a vocative stated:
“O God (hO QEOS). This quotation (the fifth) is from Psalms 45:7. A Hebrew nuptial ode (epiqalamium) for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether hO QEOS is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in John 20:28 with the Messiah termed QEOS as is possible, John 1:18) or hO QEOS is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Either makes good sense”-Word Pictures in the N.T., vol 5, p.339.
Finally we quote from A New Commentary of Holy Scripture Including the Apocrypha:
“O God: see on Ps 45:6. In the Psalm the King is addressed as God (Elohim: cf. Ps 82:6). If this translation is retained our Lord is here proclaimed as God by the Father (= 'they God' in next verse). The other translation 'thy throne is God' is equally possible and we cannot say which of the two our writer adopts.”(page 605. Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, edited by Charles Gore, Henry Leighton Goudge, Alfred Guilaume, 1946 reprint of corrected edition of March 1929. (Underlining added.)
The following is a post from Jason Beduhn
on the b-greek list where he makes extensive comment on what he book “Truth in TRanslation” had to say about the probable way one should translate Hebrews 1.8:Jason BeDuhn , Fri Jul 9 17:24:17 EDT 2004
Dear B-Greek subscribers,
I am not a member of your list. But my name has come up in a discussion of
Hebrews 1.8, and I wish to set the record straight on what I have said about
this verse in my book Truth in Translation. First of all, you should know
that the book is about translation, not interpretation, and that all of its
arguments are rooted in linguistic analysis of the original Greek of the New
Testament within its literary, historical, and cultural context. It does not
concern itself with theological debate over interpretation. A year or so ago,
when someone brought up the book as a topic for discussion on this list, the
moderators banned any such discussion, for reasons that escape me. But now
Dr. Conrad, without benefit of actually reading my very short chapter on
Hebrews 1.8, has objected to one sentence within that chapter that was quoted
on this list, and offered an analysis at the conclusion of which he states
that what I have said “will not stand as an objection to the conventional
translation of Heb. 1.3″ and that “BeDuhn's claim that the conventional
reading of the text is grammatically invalid just won't hold water.”To his credit, Dr. Conrad qualifies his co
nclusions by stating that they apply
to my position “if it has been accurately cited and in sufficient context.” I
must say that it has not. Nor do I fault the individual who quoted me,
because his sole purpose was to ask if the particular point I made in the one
sentence (not my whole position and argument) was factually correct. Dr.
Conrad certainly did not have sufficient information on my argument to
gratuitiously assert that I am “unaware of the existential function of the
verb EINAI in Greek” and that I “assume that all instances of the verb are
copulative.” Nor was he in a position to assume that I consider the
conventional reading of Heb. 1.3 to be invalid. In fact, I say in my book,
“Both translations [the conventional and the one found in the NWT, as well as
in notes to the NRSV and TEV] are possible, so none of the translations we are
comnparing can be rejected inaccurate. We cannot settle the debate with
certainty” (99) and “Let me repeat that both ways of translating Hebrews 1.8
are legitimate readings of the original Greek of the verse. There is no basis
for proponents of either translation to claim that the other translation is
certainly wrong. All that can be discussed is which translation is more
probable” (101). I hope that is clear. I argue in the book that “God is your
throne” is more probable based on the following points:Linguistic:
1. preponderance of use of hO QEOS as a nominative, rather than as a vocative;
2. lack of parallel to using EIS TON AIWNA as an absolute predicate phrase;
preponderance of its use as modifier of other elements within the predicate;
3. the existence of an alternative way to convey the vocative if it is
intended.Literary:
1. literary context in Hebrews fails to supply another reference to Jesus as
“God”; functionality of the verse in its context without taking hO QEOS as a
vocative;
2. literary context of original passage in Psalm 45 shows that God is not
being addressed; rather a king is being praised by cataloguing the attributes
of his life in the palace.Let me add that this argument in presented in just two pages written at a
popular level.Dr. Conrad has gone to the trouble of carefully investigating my statement
that “There is no other example in the Bible where the expression 'forever'
stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb 'to be' . . . 'Forever'
always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb, or a
predicate noun or pronoun” (99, part of Linguistic argument 2 above). He cites
what he considers contrary examples, and this leads to his conclusion that my
statement is in error. It is in error only in the way I sometimes let the
popular level at which I am writing in the book oversimplify, namely, (a) I
use “Bible” and “New Testament” interchangeably in the book, and (b) once I
have given an English rendering for a Greek phrase, I use the English to stand
for the referenced Greek wording. I can see now that his needs to be handled
more carefully in future editions of the book. My statement, within the
context of how the book is written (with the two practices of simplification I
just mentioned) is correct. None of Dr. Conrad's examples refute it, and I am
surprised no one else on this list has noted that fact. In none of Dr.
Conrad's examples does the phrase EIS TON AIWNA stand alone with an explicit
or implicit EINAI in the predicate. Instead, his exampled involve either the
dative of possessor which the phrase complements (in the doxological formulae)
or the adverbial phrase MEQ' hUMWN, which again the phrase complements. Now
we all know how easy it is to quibble about what is or is not a true parallel.
But all I wish to assert here is that Dr. Conrad's argument falls short of
demonstrating a failing in mine.On the other hand, Dr. Conrad's instincts were right, even if he did not
succeed in supporting them sufficiently. That is the case because if we take
the Septuagint into account, then my statement would need to be qualified.
Because there, in that part of the Bible that I did not take into
consideration in my analysis, we do find the phrase EIS TON AIWNA used
absolutely with either explicit or implicit EINAI, namely, in Psalm 80.16
(81.15), 103.31 (104.31), 134.13 (135.13), and repeatedly in the expression
“his mercy (is) forever” in Psalms 99, 105, 106, 117, 135, and 137). So this
information would require me to speak here, as I do in connection with hO
QEOS, of preponderance of usage rather than claiming that there are no other
examples. EIS TON AIWNA usually and regularly modifies some other element of
a predicate, but it can stand alone, and so this part of my argument looses
much of its force. A survey of the Psalms does show, however, that the
preferred way to make an existential statement about the subject with EIS TON
AIWNA is with MENW (e.g., Psalms 9.8, 32.11, 88.37, 101.13, 102.9, 110.3,
110.10, 111.3, 111.9, 116.2).With that, let me just repeat that there is no objective, linguistic way to
determine which of the two possible translations of Heb. 1.8 is the correct
one, and one's choice must always be qualified by this fact. I have made an
argument for preferring one translation as more probable, and even with a
retraction of one part of it as too sweeping an assertion, that argument is
still stronger than any with which I am familiar on behalf of the other
possible translation. I would be interested to hear any argument that could
be made on linguistic and literary grounds for preferring the “conventional
translation” to the other.best wishes,
Jason BeDuhnJason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona UniversityQuote or “theios, 2 Pet 1:3,4, which by the way is used by Peter for divine nature and power, which many try to force this word to mean that we are equal to Yeshua or the Father in being. Yeshua *is* divine, “Theos”, not “Theios” which is what we share”, This word is found only these 3 times in scripture. Which describes his nature and not his being.
or
“theotes, Col 2:9”
or
“theiotes” Rom 1:20″
Why didnt John use one of these words instead of “Theos” in John 1:1?
Perhaps that one reason is, just as we found that the word “proskyneo” (obeisance, bowing down, worship) has many flavors of meaning, so does the word “El” or “Elohim” (Heb for God.) We know that the Hebrew equavialent of “Theos” can be applied to ONE WHO ARE NOT JEHOVAH GOD ALMIGHTY! WE KNOW THIS. So, with the Hebrew equivalent of “Theos” it's clear that this word simply means what it means: “Mighty one, strong one, etc.” Of course, when applied to the judges, or the angels, it didn't mean that they were equal to Jehovah or that they were Jehovah or that they were of the same nature or class as Jehovah.
Now, being that Jesus, the ONLY begotten son OF God, (hence, not God) is second only to the Almighty, certainly a stronger word could be used. As I said, yes, there were a variety of words available. But to use one of those other words, might not have been enough.
Hi David,
Thanks again for these posts. I think they're taking the discussion to a deeper level than the usual taunts that go back and forth here.
Can I ask you, at this point, what exactly you believe Jesus is? Is He created? Was there a time when He did not exist?
Thanks,
TimQuote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2007,13:46) Hi W, You say there are not three deities?
Have you discussed this with CB and Tim2?
NHThere is One God, three persons.
Each person is truly God, therefore each person is truly deity.
One Deity three persons.
Plurality of Oneness is shown throughout all creation.
God has revealed his Glory.
Quote (david @ May 01 2007,14:13) Quote or “theios, 2 Pet 1:3,4, which by the way is used by Peter for divine nature and power, which many try to force this word to mean that we are equal to Yeshua or the Father in being. Yeshua *is* divine, “Theos”, not “Theios” which is what we share”, This word is found only these 3 times in scripture. Which describes his nature and not his being.
or
“theotes, Col 2:9”
or
“theiotes” Rom 1:20″
Why didnt John use one of these words instead of “Theos” in John 1:1?
Perhaps that one reason is, just as we found that the word “proskyneo” (obeisance, bowing down, worship) has many flavors of meaning, so does the word “El” or “Elohim” (Heb for God.) We know that the Hebrew equavialent of “Theos” can be applied to ONE WHO ARE NOT JEHOVAH GOD ALMIGHTY! WE KNOW THIS. So, with the Hebrew equivalent of “Theos” it's clear that this word simply means what it means: “Mighty one, strong one, etc.” Of course, when applied to the judges, or the angels, it didn't mean that they were equal to Jehovah or that they were Jehovah or that they were of the same nature or class as Jehovah.
Now, being that Jesus, the ONLY begotten son OF God, (hence, not God) is second only to the Almighty, certainly a stronger word could be used. As I said, yes, there were a variety of words available. But to use one of those other words, might not have been enough.
DavidYou are right it wouldnt have been enough.
Because Yeshua is true God.
John coould have said..
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the Son of God.
This is what NH interprets it to be.
But John didnt he ascribed the word Theos to the Word.
Again David, you have not given me an example of an Angel of God or a Living King or a man that the word Theos was ascribed to in New Testament times other than The Father and Yeshua and the oposites of god, false gods or satan.
The writers of the New Testament scriptures knew when they used the word Theos what they were referring to.
Jesus is truly God, “Theos”.
BTW. Jesus is the Monogenes “Unique” Son of God because he took on the likeness of sinfull flesh and came into the world as a man.
He was God in the flesh, reconciling the world unto himself.
Quote There is one very common error that most people tend to make, and that is to assume that True Statements are, also, true when applied in the reverse order. And while it is sometimes true, it is rarely true. True Examples:
(1) Black is the opposite of white, and thus white is the opposite of black. (TRUE)(2) The Righteous are like Yahweh in Spirit, and thus those like Yahweh in Spirit are Righteous. (TRUE)
Untrue Examples: (These are (FALSE) relationships)
(1) All cows are animals, thus all animals are cows. (FALSE)
(2) G-d has supreme Authority, and thus all who have Supreme Authority are G-d. (FALSE) Yes, this is absolutely false.
(3) Messiah Yahshua sits on the Right Hand of Yahweh, and thus Yahweh sits on the Right Hand of Yahshua. (FALSE)
(4) Yahweh is Divine, and thus all Divine beings are Yahweh. (FALSE)
(5) G-d has a Spiritual IMAGE, and thus those with G-d's Spiritual IMAGE are G-d. (FALSE)
wj, i ASK that you consider these words above from unisage.
–Jehovah God Almighty is called “theos” therefore everyone called “theos” is Jehovah God Almighty. (This is not a true statement, at least, not one based on any sort of logical thinking.)
–In the Bible only Jesus and Jehovah are called “theos” therefore they are the same person. (Also, not in any way provable or logical or rational thinking.)
I would tend to think that because when the greek writers quoted from the Hebrew word “Elohim” they used “theos” that these words must be the same. Since we know that Elohim can be applied to angels, etc, it stands to reason that it's Greek equivalent could be as well.
But if there are different words that could be used, and weren't, this in iteself still doesn't actuall prove anything of course.
Jesus is above the angels, humans, etc. A stronger word may be needed and yet, as stated, just because a word is used for both Jehovah and Jesus does not mean they are the same one.In all these pages, only Nick and T8 are called “moderators” and “administrators” yet, we know they are not the same person.
Quote (david @ May 01 2007,19:05) Hi cubes. I'm not completely certain what your plan was for this thread, but I imagine it's already fallen apart. So I'm just going to post “whatever” as most I believe are probably doing.
Hi Dave,Not a problem. Whatever works best for all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
