- This topic has 713 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
You have not addressed Heb 1:10-12, you talked about Heb 1:8-9.
The Father identifies the Son as YHVH here:
Heb 1:10-12
And, “YOU, LORD, (YHVH, the Son) IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL WEAR OUT LIKE A GARMENT,
12AND LIKE A ROBE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”
Since the Father identifies the Son as the YHVH who laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of the Son’s hands, you ought to adjust your theology if you want to line up with truth.
LU
In the past God spoke to our ancestors = God is speaking;
For to which of the angels did God ever say = God speaking;
But about the Son he says = Is the Son now speaking?
What if I said, “about Lightenup, she says…”
You wouldn’t be confused at all would you?
Only some kind of filter or doctrine would make you think it was not you.
The only exception I see here is that it could be referring to someone else if it is a quote and indeed it is a quote.
Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quote from Psalm 102:25. If we read Psalm 102, it is evident that God is NOT speaking here either. It is the Psalmist speaking. If Psalm 102 shows us that God IS NOT speaking, then claiming that the speaker is God in Hebrews 1:10-12 and by extension Psalms too actually contradicts Psalm 102 itself. Further, it is clear that the other quoted Psalms between Hebrews 1:6 and Hebrews 1:12 has the psalmist as the speaker and not God. At this point, the best rescuing device you could use is the Psalmist speaking of the Son. But that option shuts down when you realise the following:
If the psalmist were speaking of the Son and if God is speaking in Hebrews 1:10-12, then this adds massive confusion. This would mean that God is quoting the psalmist to say that God the Father is not the creator. We who believe in the existence of the one true God know that God the Father created all things. This is a given. Yet both these views remove that obvious fact and instead says it was the Son that created the universe. Further, it also reinforces this erroneous view by arguing that the Father is admitting that the Son is the creator and by extension, not him. We know that is incorrect if we are serious students of scripture. Let’s now look at how Jesus himself would see this. Judging by his own words, you can see that Jesus would not support this erroneous view just as I do not.
And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
Of course, I know that your response will be that because they’re both God, they are both the creator. While you have to completely ignore Jesus own words in red above, you would also need to ignore that your view is actually saying that the Father admits that the he is not the creator but the Son is. So while the Binity created all things, the Father part did not, only the Son part. If your view makes the Son the creator and not the Father, then you must have erred somewhere.
I read a post of yours somewhere that pointed out that “ye are gods” is not using the word ‘theos’ but a plural version of that. Thanks for pointing that out. I’m pretty sure I knew that at some point but completely forgot about it. Anyway, we know this is a quote from the Old Testament and the word is ‘Elohim’. This word can be used of angels and can be used to describe something great like an earthquake for example. So I guess the Greek is quoting the NT and Elohim appears to be like the word ‘sheep’ in that it is both plural and singular.
To be honest, I haven’t even checked that out, but if this is not correct, I don’t mind you pointing that out too. I just do not have the time to research that. I would appreciate if you did that, but that is up to you.
This does beg the obvious question though. If “ye are gods” uses a different variant of ‘theos’ by reason of there being more than one member as you point out, then why is God translated as ‘theos’ and not this variant if there is more than one member that makes up God?
God is speaking
For to which of the angels did God ever say,
God is not speaking
But about the Son he says,
The Son says…? The Psalmist says…?
Psalm 45 is directed at a human king. Some say Solomon. Another meaning of the word ‘theos’ is mighty one. If this can be said of a human king, then how much more the one who sits on throne next to God?
1 My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.
2 You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.
3 Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in the cause of truth, humility and justice;
let your right hand achieve awesome deeds.
5 Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.
6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.You said:
I read a post of yours somewhere that pointed out that “ye are gods” is not using the word ‘theos’ but a plural version of that. Thanks for pointing that out.
You’re welcome, is that your way of apologizing for telling me to “shut your mouth” when I attempted the first time to show you that?
You said:
But about the Son he says,
The Son says…? The Psalmist says…?
In Heb 1, the Father applies what is said in Psalm 45 to the Son.
Let it be.
Go here to continue this conversation:
I don’t remember saying that you need to “shut your mouth”. That said, I do believe it is best for a fool to shut their mouth and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Is that the context of the “shut your mouth” comment I supposedly made?
If so, I need to break it to you that I made a quote which by the way still stands true.
This is a true saying.
Now back to the question I asked of you based on your understanding of a plural form of theos.
Why is God not denoted by the plural form?
You believe that God is two persons at least.
So why is it not using the plural form?
I believe God is HE, HIM, the FATHER of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So theos in singular works. But it doesn’t work for you so it seems.
This was your post in response to me trying to tell you that “theos” has a plural form but you seemed really confused because of how you responded to me. You should have actually have taken your own advice.
LU:As is apparent in your last post, you have no idea about Greek plural nouns or singular nouns. Here is a picture of how the root word “theos” is changed in spelling to represent different uses of the word in the sentence. Please note that the singular form is not written the same as the plural form.
Proclaimer:I can’t help it if you keep misunderstanding things. Not my fault. Read my post again. It simply is saying that ‘theos’ can be applied to one or many. Further, I have taught in the past it can be applied to judges, Satan, idols, and the one true God.
Of course context and definite articles or lack of them are going to help define what theos is being spoken of. I have taught these things for not only years, even decades.
I think you need to pay attention before opening your mouth next time as this is not wise. And it doesn’t bode well for your teachings when you keep missing the mark on what others are saying. You appear to be confused. Both your teaching and interpretation of what others say seems to lack truth and understanding. This is not meant to be an insult but is truly what I am observing from you.
I don’t think that I’m the one “misunderstanding things” here. I had to tell you three times about how “theos” doesn’t fit your dogmatic yet incorrect understanding on the word “theos.” Finally you got it. I was just hoping that you would have apologized for accusing me of not paying “attention before opening your mouth” since it was you who were not paying attention after all. I have also had to remind you (about 5 or more times) of a post that you hadn’t addressed and still haven’t addressed regarding Heb 1:10-12.
Theos is a Greek word used in the NT. In the NT, knowing YHVH is both God and Lord, the NT usually designates the Father as God and the Son as Lord. Both are together as one YHVH family not two different YHVH families and therefore not two different Gods.
OMG, what is wrong with my post exactly?
I can’t help it if you keep misunderstanding things. Not my fault. Read my post again. It simply is saying that ‘theos’ can be applied to one or many. Further, I have taught in the past it can be applied to judges, Satan, idols, and the one true God.
Of course context and definite articles or lack of them are going to help define what theos is being spoken of. I have taught these things for not only years, even decades.
I think you need to pay attention before opening your mouth next time as this is not wise. And it doesn’t bode well for your teachings when you keep missing the mark on what others are saying. You appear to be confused. Both your teaching and interpretation of what others say seems to lack truth and understanding. This is not meant to be an insult but is truly what I am observing from you.
Please note that I said:
- It simply is saying that ‘theos’ can be applied to one or many.
- Of course context and definite articles or lack of them are going to help define what theos is being spoken of.
- I think you need to pay attention before opening your mouth next time as this is not wise.
Nothing wrong here. These points are true. Try to remove the emotional response and look at what I’m actually saying. Don’t let the truth offend you.
Theos is a Greek word used in the NT. In the NT, knowing YHVH is both God and Lord, the NT usually designates the Father as God and the Son as Lord.
Theos is used to describe more than the Father and the Son. It can refer to the following:
- a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
- spoken of the only and true God
- refers to the things of God
- his counsels, interests, things due to him
- whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
- God’s representative or viceregent
- of magistrates and judges
Both are together as one YHVH family not two different YHVH families and therefore not two different Gods.
So you say that the Father and Son are one theos, so that would make the words “ye are gods” no different as that is a group too.
Both are groups of persons who are described as theos.
When you argue that there is a plural form you are actually debunking yourself are you not? Why isn’t the Father and Son designated with the plural form as other groups of gods are?
Idols are one group, like judges, angels, and your version of the Binity/Trinity.
I think you were caught out by your own craftiness.
Proclaimer
This is what was incorrect:
It simply is saying that ‘theos’ can be applied to one or many.
That is what is not true because the plural is not spelled t h e o s, as you finally realized, as well as the fact that you included theos as an example of a word that is spelled the same in the plural as in the singular in your “sheep list.”
Proclaimer:
You said:
So you say that the Father and Son are one theos, so that would make the words “ye are gods” no different as that is a group too.
They are ULTIMATELY one theos because they act together, not independently, as two persons in one governing body. The ones referred to as “many gods” in 1 Cor 8 or “ye are gods” are not ultimately acting together as one governing body.
Proclaimer,
You said regarding Heb 1:10:
If the psalmist were speaking of the Son and if God is speaking in Hebrews 1:10-12, then this adds massive confusion. This would mean that God is quoting the psalmist to say that God the Father is not the creator.
Or it means that the Father created through the Son and the Father is saying what He had the Son do, and that the Son is also called YHVH.
Now, if everyone who was called “theos” was also called “YHVH.” that is where the mass confusion would come. So we are to follow after the theos who is YHVH. It just so happens that the Father is the theos who is identified as YHVH and the Son is the theos who is identified as YHVH. They are both identified as the theos in the NT and they are both identified as YHVH in the NT.
There is one name by which we can be saved and that is the name “YHVH.”
John 17:11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
Isaiah 44:6
This is what Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies, says: “I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.
Rev 2:8
To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of the First and the Last, who died and returned to life.
John 1:48“How do You know me?” Nathanael asked. Jesus replied, “Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree.” 49“Rabbi,” Nathanael answered, “You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” 50Jesus said to him, “Do you believe just because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.”…
“It simply is saying that ‘theos’ can be applied to one or many.”
That is what is not true because the plural is not spelled t h e o s, as you finally realized, as well as the fact that you included theos as an example of a word that is spelled the same in the plural as in the singular in your “sheep list.”
Yes I have already acknowledged the plural form of theos. Move on.
And we both know that theos is applied to the Most High God right? So this is sorted too.
The singular form of the word theos can refer to many others however who are not the Most High God of the Bible. For example:
- A crowd of people referred to King Herod as ‘a god / god / theos’. So false gods can be called theos if one is referenced.
- The god of this world is Satan. He is called the “god / theos of this world / age”.
Thus, theos can refer to many different beings or things. It is not always the one true God. Context is important in determining which God is being referenced. The one true God, the God of this age, a false god, etc?
Remember that false gods also means that one of the false gods is a false god / theos (singular).
So yes, many can indeed be called ‘theos’.
For your reference, here is an abbreviated definition from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
theos
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God’ s representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judges
Can we move on now? Or do you not have anything else to offer and will continue to regurgitate that which is already sorted?
I will repeat this in case my post is too long for you to read.
So yes, many can be called ‘theos’
Move on please.
Now, if everyone who was called “theos” was also called “YHVH.” that is where the mass confusion would come. So we are to follow after the theos who is YHVH. It just so happens that the Father is the theos who is identified as YHVH and the Son is the theos who is identified as YHVH. They are both identified as the theos in the NT and they are both identified as YHVH in the NT.
Polytheism?
And denial that Jesus is the son of YHWH?
Polytheism?
And denial that Jesus is the son of YHWH?
No to both. The one great God YHVH is both God and Lord, Father and Son, who alone created the cosmos.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
