Preexistence

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 15 2009,01:18)

yes i can; paul was telling the truth ;Paul never forget to mention the thank to his God the father who is the one who as the will and power to make it all come trough and thanks to the Son for willingly having given is live in ransom for us Jesus christ.

Yes of course we are to give the Son the same honour as we do the Father. John 5:23

In fact look who it is sitting in the throne with the Father being praised and worshipped!

“And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB FOR EVER AND EVER“. Rev 5:13

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 15 2009,01:26)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,12:09) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 15 2009,00:45) Worshipping Jesus wrote: Quote “No other DIVINE BEING except the Father and Jesus (who are “One”) is called “Theos” by the Father or the Apostles or any followers of Jesus in the NT.”, unless you believe Jesus is not Divine? There are others but Jesus and God that are called “theos” in the New Testament.  It does not mean they are divine.  The writers were attempting to translate Hebrew ideas into the Greek language so “theos” is used equivalently to “elohim” and not necessary how the Greeks themselves would use it. It is used over 1000 times in the New Testament. Kerwin That still does not explain why the Apostles called Jesus “Their theos”, and never once ever mentioned any other as such but the Father and the Holy Spirit! Neither does any of the early church Fathers call any other their God BTW. WJ That is a little more information than I had before to go on.  I have not looked into the subject.  Thank for clarifying your point of view.

Kerwin

You are welcome!  

WJ

[terraricca]

hi WJ
oh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

went the diciples say” who my God” to Jesus they must understand what they instruction they recieved from the Son of the Father.
and see in the spirit of truth.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 15 2009,01:41)

hi WJ oh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Joh 10:29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Joh 10:30  I and my Father are one. went the diciples say” who my God” to Jesus they must understand what they instruction they recieved from the Son of the Father. and see in the spirit of truth.

T

How about if the Father calls him God?

Isa 9:6, Heb 1:8.

If the Father calls him God and commands the Angels to worship him then so should you and I!

WJ

[chosenone]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,17:21)

Quote (chosenone @ Dec. 14 2009,19:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,08:36) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2009,16:26) hi wj God is not a trinity,you make Christ a liar look John 14;28 Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. terraricca Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2009,16:26) hi wj God is not a trinity, Presto, terraricca knows everything about the nature of God. terraricca also denys scripture that say Jesus is God. Presto the Trintarian debate is finished because terraricca says so.     But, terraricca cannot explain why Paul and the Apostles say things like… while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Titus 2:13 WJ JW.   You quote Titus2:13, as an argument for the trinity, that if read in context, and correctly translated thusly: Titus2:9-13…  9 Slaves are to be subject to their own owners, to be well-pleasing in all things, not contradicting; 10 not embezzling, but displaying all good faithfulness, that they may be adorning the teaching that is of God, our Saviour, in all things. 11 For the saving grace of God made its advent to all humanity, 12 training us that, disowning irreverence and worldly desires, we should be living sanely and justly and devoutly in the current eon, 13 anticipating that happy expectation, even the advent of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,   I believe this is identifying our “great God” and our “Saviour Jesus Christ” (both).  Not our “great God and Saviour” (one)   The same as 1Tim4:9-11… 9 Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome 10 (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers. 11 These things be charging and teaching.   Notice… God, who is the saviour of all mankind… Blessings. CO Nowhere does the scriptures claim we are looking for the Father to come again or to appear! The word “Appear” in the verse in every case it is used in the NT is speaking of Jesus! The Grandville Sharp rule is at play in the verse which means since there is only one article for the words “God and Saviour” they are the same referent. The GSR has never been refuted! WJ

JW.
Where did I say “That we are looking for the Father to come again and appear”? You didn't read my post correctly, the word used in scripture, correctly translated, is not 'appear', but …”verse 13, anticipating that happy expectation, even the “advent” of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.
Correct translation is manditory for correct understanding.

Blessings.

[david]

Is saying “he will be called” the same as calling him “God” himself? In Is 9:6, the Father does not call Jesus God.
And of course, in Heb 1:8, there is an alternate translation.
http://www.carm.org/religio….-throne

Quote

In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways: “God is your throne forever and ever…. and “Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…” But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version,

…..and conversely, because most every other translator is trinitarian, they choose the “Jesus is God” translation.

So, in Is 9:6, we certainly don't have Jehovah 'calling' Jesus his God, or even God. We have the text saying that he would be called “mighty god.”
And of course, Heb 1:8 has two possible translations.

But what we do know, and we know without question, is that very very clearly, and without dispute, about 4 or 5 times, Jesus referred to the Father as his “God.”

It has never been the other way around.

Quote

If the Father calls him God and commands the Angels to worship him then so should you and I!

Please don't let WJ deceive you with empty words. Please go to the “worship” thread and study the word “proskyneo.” It's basic meaning is not “worship” but rather “bow down, do obeisance” but can and often does mean worship…once again, depending on what mood the translator is in….a trinitarian mood, or a non-trinitarian one.

david.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (chosenone @ Dec. 15 2009,01:52)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,17:21) Quote (chosenone @ Dec. 14 2009,19:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,08:36) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2009,16:26) hi wj God is not a trinity,you make Christ a liar look John 14;28 Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. terraricca Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2009,16:26) hi wj God is not a trinity, Presto, terraricca knows everything about the nature of God. terraricca also denys scripture that say Jesus is God. Presto the Trintarian debate is finished because terraricca says so.     But, terraricca cannot explain why Paul and the Apostles say things like… while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Titus 2:13 WJ JW.   You quote Titus2:13, as an argument for the trinity, that if read in context, and correctly translated thusly: Titus2:9-13…  9 Slaves are to be subject to their own owners, to be well-pleasing in all things, not contradicting; 10 not embezzling, but displaying all good faithfulness, that they may be adorning the teaching that is of God, our Saviour, in all things. 11 For the saving grace of God made its advent to all humanity, 12 training us that, disowning irreverence and worldly desires, we should be living sanely and justly and devoutly in the current eon, 13 anticipating that happy expectation, even the advent of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,   I believe this is identifying our “great God” and our “Saviour Jesus Christ” (both).  Not our “great God and Saviour” (one)   The same as 1Tim4:9-11… 9 Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome 10 (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers. 11 These things be charging and teaching.   Notice… God, who is the saviour of all mankind… Blessings. CO Nowhere does the scriptures claim we are looking for the Father to come again or to appear! The word “Appear” in the verse in every case it is used in the NT is speaking of Jesus! The Grandville Sharp rule is at play in the verse which means since there is only one article for the words “God and Saviour” they are the same referent. The GSR has never been refuted! WJ JW.   Where did I say “That we are looking for the Father to come again and appear”?  You didn't read my post correctly, the word used in scripture, correctly translated, is not 'appear', but …”verse 13,  anticipating that happy expectation, even the “advent” of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.   Correct translation is manditory for correct understanding. Blessings.

CO

Advent. Appearing, Event, is the same Greek word “Strong's G2015 – epiphaneia” and is found 6 times in the AV and in every case it refers to Jesus appearing (advent) and not the Fathers!

WJ

[david]

Quote

JW. Where did I say “That we

WJ, you have to get yourself a new name. At least a few times, you have mistakenly been called a “JW.”

[terraricca]

hi WJ
Isaiah annonces the comming of Christ,
Heb;1 -8,9 read it totaly please
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.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

also you have to understand ;
Exo 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

this as to be seen whit the spirit of Christ

[david]

Remember, this verse could go either way:

“God is your throne forever and ever….
and
“Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…”

“When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators.” ….because they are trinitarian, that is.
http://www.carm.org/religio….-throne

“Throne” figuratively signifies a seat of ruling authority (1Ki 2:12; 16:11) or the kingly authority and sovereignty itself (Ge 41:40; 1Ch 17:14; Ps 89:44); a reigning government or royal administration (2Sa 14:9); sovereign control over a territory (2Sa 3:10); and a position of honor (1Sa 2:7, 8; 2Ki 25:28).

God is Jesus' seat of authority. It was God that gave all power over heaven and earth to Jesus. When we consider for a moment how “throne” is used in the Bible and what it represents, it becomes easier to see how this verse could be translated:

“God is your throne forever and ever….

….meaning, God is the authority behind Jesus.

Here's an example for those that didn't look up the scriptures above:
And I will cause him to stand in my house and in my kingship to time indefinite, and his throne will itself become one lasting to time indefinite.”’” (1 chron 17:14)

It's talking not about his actual physical throne, but about his rulership.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:12)

Remember, this verse could go either way: “God is your throne forever and ever….     and   “Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…” “When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators.”  ….because they are trinitarian, that is. http://www.carm.org/religio….-throne “Throne” figuratively signifies a seat of ruling authority (1Ki 2:12; 16:11) or the kingly authority and sovereignty itself (Ge 41:40; 1Ch 17:14; Ps 89:44); a reigning government or royal administration (2Sa 14:9); sovereign control over a territory (2Sa 3:10); and a position of honor (1Sa 2:7, 8; 2Ki 25:28). God is Jesus' seat of authority.  It was God that gave all power over heaven and earth to Jesus.  When we consider for a moment how “throne” is used in the Bible and what it represents, it becomes easier to see how this verse could be translated: “God is your throne forever and ever….   ….meaning, God is the authority behind Jesus. Here's an example for those that didn't look up the scriptures above: And I will cause him to stand in my house and in my kingship to time indefinite, and his throne will itself become one lasting to time indefinite.”’” (1 chron 17:14) It's talking not about his actual physical throne, but about his rulership.

Hey David

Were you getting bored somewhere else or did you get kicked off somewhere for promoting your JW propaganda?

Tell me David, why do you work so hard at saying the scriptures do not call Jesus “God” theos, when your own translation says that he is “a theos”?

Shall we discuss your polytheism again? I can just paste the previous post and we can go around in circles if you like?

WJ

[david]

Quote

Hey David Were you getting bored somewhere else or did you get kicked off somewhere for promoting your JW propaganda?

No, WJ, after a while, I missed watching your brainwashing and evasion tactics, so I thought I'd come back and enjoy the show. I love how you can't stay on subject, or how you attack people almost racially whenever in a jam. Ahhh. Good times.

Quote

Tell me David, why do you work so hard at saying the scriptures do not call Jesus “God” theos, when your own translation says that he is “a theos”?

I do not say, nor have I ever said (as you of course know) that Jesus is never referred to by the word “god.”

But, given that Jehovah is referred to as God about 7000 times, don't you think it odd that Jesus is only clearly and without question referred to by that word a few times–literally, I can count them on one hand.

I just want to keep things in perspective.

Hey, I almost didn't notice that you made no attempt to actually comment on anything I said. You are good!

david.

[banana]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 30 2007,05:38)

The belief that Jesus was alive before his conception raises a number of questions about his nature.  Is it possible to be a human being in any meaningful sense if one does not originate in the womb of one's mother? John Knox said this, “We can have the humanity of Christ without the preexistence and we can have the preexistence without the humanity.  There is absolutely no way of having both.” The Messiah, according to scripture was to be a descendant of David, of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and the seed of the women (Gen. 3:15).  Paul constantly thinks of Christ as the last Adam (man).  If he existed as a person before his conception, in what sense is he – the real person – a human being and a descendant of David and Abraham? What do other's think?  If you believe Jesus existed prior to his birth, please give your scriptural understanding.  As most of you know, I contend for the Son of God beginning his life – for the first time – at conception. If Jesus is the Son, and words mean anything, a “son” is derived and dependent.

Mandy

I feel kind of silly to post in a thread, that has been going on for so long.
If you believe Jesus had his beginning at his human birth, than how would you explain these scriptures?

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
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:

How could God have created all things through him, if he had not existed?

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

How could God have send his son, how could God have given us his son, had he not existed?

Jesus was a spirit being before he became human, when he became human, he was all human, not both.

Hbr 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

He was a descendant of David, but only on the mothers side.
He is called a Son, because he is the only one God created himself; that is what the definition is in my dictionary, Father- he who gives life to the son. Son- he who receives life from the Father. He was not called Jesus before his human birth. John refers to him as the “Word”, the reason, the son, or an angel did all the talking. The son was the spokesman for God, because “no man” has ever heard the voice of the Father.

Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Notice, “at any time”, is any one doubting the word of Jesus?
And yes, as a created being, spirit or human, Jesus “WAS” dependent on the Father. I said was, because now he is divine and immortal as his Father.

Jhn 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself (immortality); so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself (immortality);

That was after he had finished his work here on earth; had he been immortal, which means, death is impossible, how could he have died for us? but that still does not make him equal to the Father; nothing and no one, will ever be equal to the Father.

Georg

[KangarooJack]

CO  said to WJ:

Quote

Where did I say “That we are looking for the Father to come again and appear”?  You didn't read my post correctly, the word used in scripture, correctly translated, is not 'appear', but …”verse 13,  anticipating that happy expectation, even the “advent” of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.  Correct translation is manditory for correct understanding.

CO,
See Strong's3 2015. The word “epiphaneia” may be translated either way. What is your point?

thinker

[KangarooJack]

CO said:

Quote

I believe this is identifying our “great God” and our “Saviour Jesus Christ” (both).  Not our “great God and Saviour” (one)

CO,
You are quite mistaken. “God AND Savior” mean one and the same.

Heaven Net friends,
Titus 2:13 is a direct assertion that Jesus Christ is God,

Quote

Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Note this grammatical rule right from the textbook,

Quote

If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76).

The textbook gives Titus 2:13 as an example of this rule,

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

I put the article which comes before “great God” in bold for you. And I also put the Greek “kai” in bold. There is no article before “Savior”. This means that the substantatives “great God” and “Savior” (Jesus Christ) are ONE AND THE SAME.

This is right from the textbook!

Yet the New World translation inserts a second definite article before the word “Savior” to make a distinction between God and Savior.

Quote

While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus

There is no second definite article before “Savior”. The NWT translators inserted the second article in brackets thus exposing their true agenda.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

David said:

Quote

Remember, this verse could go either way: “God is your throne forever and ever….    and  “Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…”

No David! The verse cannot go either way. The whole context is about the Father's spoken witness about the Son. Are you saying that the Father is speaking TO the Son GLORIFYING Him and then suddenly interjects a word about Himself which does not fit the progression of thought?

Verse 10 blows your theory to hades because the author quoted the Septuagint version of the old testament which says “you Kurios in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth.” The Hebrew word is “YHWH”, the Septuagint uses “Kurios” and the author to the Hebrews applies “Kurios” to the Son. Therefore, the Son is YHWH!

The NWT's rendering is totally without grammatical and contextual basis. Back to the drawing board for you David.

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:12)

Remember, this verse could go either way:

So you say and you’re lonely NWT that has been proven to be disingenuous in its Translation, maybe because there were no Hebrew and Greek scholars on the translating team.  

Yep, I choose the legitimate translations on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org that were translated by real scholars over the NWT.

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:12)

“God is your throne forever and ever….     and   “Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…” “When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators.”  ….because they are trinitarian, that is. http://www.carm.org/religio….-throne

Ah but you just said that it “could go either way”, yet now you seek to discredit real Hebrew and Greek scholars. BTW, we are not talking about the Hebrew in Heb 1:8 but about the Greek. The writer of Heb 1:8 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote it and in context would know more about the meaning of the Psalmist than you or the NWT translators.

The Net, which is put together by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts commented on the verse…

24tn Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.” This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν…δέ (men…de) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: “On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.” “Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:12)

“Throne” figuratively signifies a seat of ruling authority (1Ki 2:12; 16:11) or the kingly authority and sovereignty itself (Ge 41:40; 1Ch 17:14; Ps 89:44); a reigning government or royal administration (2Sa 14:9); sovereign control over a territory (2Sa 3:10); and a position of honor (1Sa 2:7, 8; 2Ki 25:28).

This point should be of some concern for the Arians because God does not share his sovereign Glory with another. Yet we see that Jesus post incarnation is seated at the right hand of the Father as our “Only Lord and Master” (Jude 1:4).  He returned to the Glory that he shared with the Father before the foundations of the world (John 17:3). And now at this time is not subject to the Father until all things are subjected to him, Jesus.

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:12)

God is Jesus' seat of authority.  It was God that gave all power over heaven and earth to Jesus.  When we consider for a moment how “throne” is used in the Bible and what it represents, it becomes easier to see how this verse could be translated: “God is your throne forever and ever….   ….meaning, God is the authority behind Jesus. Here's an example for those that didn't look up the scriptures above: And I will cause him to stand in my house and in my kingship to time indefinite, and his throne will itself become one lasting to time indefinite.”’” (1 chron 17:14) It's talking not about his actual physical throne, but about his rulership.

Why do you Arians always refer to Jesus post incarnation when you speak of the Father giving him all authority and power. Remember it was Jesus who “emptied himself” and left his glory and power to be subject to the Father for a season in the flesh. Phil 2:6-8

He had shared all authority and power with the Father before all things since he was the agent by and through whom all things were made!

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:12)

Remember, this verse could go either way:

But the evidence leans our way David, little wonder why all the other major translations render the verse the same.

“On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.” “Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

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. Heb 1:8

So take your pick David, I have chosen mine!  

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 15 2009,12:26)

David said: Quote Remember, this verse could go either way: “God is your throne forever and ever….    and  “Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…” No David! The verse cannot go either way. The whole context is about the Father's spoken witness about the Son. Are you saying that the Father is speaking TO the Son GLORIFYING Him and then suddenly interjects a word about Himself which does not fit the progression of thought? Verse 10 blows your theory to hades because the author quoted the Septuagint version of the old testament which says “you Kurios in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth.” The Hebrew word is “YHWH”, the Septuagint uses “Kurios” and the author to the Hebrews applies “Kurios” to the Son. Therefore, the Son is YHWH! The NWT's rendering is totally without grammatical and contextual basis. Back to the drawing board for you David. thinker

Jack

Excellent point about context and Heb 1:10.

The obvious intent of the writer is to show the Deity of Christ.

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 16 2009,04:45)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 15 2009,12:26) David said: Quote Remember, this verse could go either way: “God is your throne forever and ever….    and  “Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever…” No David! The verse cannot go either way. The whole context is about the Father's spoken witness about the Son. Are you saying that the Father is speaking TO the Son GLORIFYING Him and then suddenly interjects a word about Himself which does not fit the progression of thought? Verse 10 blows your theory to hades because the author quoted the Septuagint version of the old testament which says “you Kurios in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth.” The Hebrew word is “YHWH”, the Septuagint uses “Kurios” and the author to the Hebrews applies “Kurios” to the Son. Therefore, the Son is YHWH! The NWT's rendering is totally without grammatical and contextual basis. Back to the drawing board for you David. thinker Jack Excellent point about context and Heb 1:10. The obvious intent of the writer is to show the Deity of Christ. WJ

Yeah Keith. Hebrews 1 is about the Father's testimony concerning His Son. David would have us to believe that in the middle of it God breaks the thought and says to the Son, “don't let My glorification of you here go to your head. Just remember who I am.”

Then in verse 10 the Father confuses things even more by attributing the word “Kurios” to the Son from the Septuagint translation of “YHWH.”

David needs for the Father to engage in double talk as his JW brethren.

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,02:17)

Hey David Were you getting bored somewhere else or did you get kicked off somewhere for promoting your JW propaganda?

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:28)

No, WJ, after a while, I missed watching your brainwashing and evasion tactics, so I thought I'd come back and enjoy the show.

You mean like the brainwashing the Watchtower has done on you and on the many other deceived JWs?

The real show is to see you squirm when you are in a corner theologically and can’t get out so you just use a little magic and disappear for awhile to avoid the heat.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,02:17)

I love how you can't stay on subject, or how you attack people almost racially whenever in a jam.  Ahhh.  Good times.

This is laughable seeing how you attacked me from the start.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 15 2009,02:17)

Tell me David, why do you work so hard at saying the scriptures do not call Jesus “God” theos, when your own translation says that he is “a theos”?

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:28)

I do not say, nor have I ever said (as you of course know) that Jesus is never referred to by the word “god.”

And you call me evasive. Nice wording, why didn’t you just say…

“”I do not say, nor have I ever said (as you of course know) that Jesus is never referred to as “a god”.

That would be truer to the NWT wouldn't it?

You Arians seem to have a problem with calling Jesus your “god” or “God”, could it be that you do not accept the scriptures that claim he is God!

Oh I know you say that you can count them on one hand, but how many does it take David?

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:28)

But, given that Jehovah is referred to as God about 7000 times, don't you think it odd that Jesus is only clearly and without question referred to by that word a few times–literally, I can count them on one hand.

Yes of course that is if you presume that YHWH only means the Father and not Jesus who is the “Rock” that followed them in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4), the Savior that delivered them (Jude 1:3, 4)

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:28)

I just want to keep things in perspective.

You mean the JW perspective!

Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:28)

Hey, I almost didn't notice that you made no attempt to actually comment on anything I said.  You are good! david.

I was too tired last night to deal with your strawmen!

WJ

[Author]

Posts