Search Members

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

You keep trying to change the subject from the actual question.

You asked:
“Does Hebrews chapter one claim all that is quoted from the Tanakh is applied to Jesus or not?”

Answer: Yes, Hebrews 1 applies those passages to the Son. That is explicit in the text.

Hebrews 1:1–2: God spoke through the prophets, but now has spoken in His Son.
Hebrews 1:3: The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.
Hebrews 1:5–14: A chain of Tanakh quotations applied to “the Son” in contrast to angels.

So yes, Hebrews is intentionally applying those passages to Jesus as the Son. That is not in dispute. The question is whether that application is consistent with the Tanakh in its own context and with Jewish interpretive patterns.

Let’s go through the key passages.

1. Psalm 2 in Hebrews 1:5

Hebrews 1:5 quotes:
“You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” (Psalm 2:7)

Your objection was:
“Psalm 2 isn’t about Jesus, and Jews didn’t interpret it messianically before Christianity.”

The issue is not “Is Psalm 2 originally about Jesus?” The issue is:
Is Psalm 2 part of a Davidic/messianic pattern that later Jewish and Christian writers legitimately extend?

Psalm 2 in its original context:
– A royal psalm about the Davidic king.
– The king is called “My Son” by God.
– The nations are promised to him as inheritance.

This fits the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:
– God promises David a son who will sit on his throne.
– God says, “I will be his Father, and he will be My Son.”

So Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 together form a royal, Davidic “son of God” theology.

Now, on Jewish messianic interpretation:
You challenged my claim that Jews interpreted Psalm 2 messianically before Christianity, and you tried to dismiss the sources I mentioned.

Let’s be precise.

Dead Sea Scrolls:
4QFlorilegium (4Q174) is a Qumran text that cites 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 together and applies them to “the Branch of David,” a messianic figure. This is a pre‑Christian Jewish text. It shows that Psalm 2 was already being read messianically in the Second Temple period.

Targum Jonathan:
You are correct that Targum Jonathan is on the Prophets, not the Writings. I should have specified the Aramaic Targum tradition more carefully. The point remains: later Jewish targumic tradition does apply royal and messianic language to Davidic figures, and Psalm 2 is part of that trajectory.

Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a:
Yes, this is post‑Christian (3rd–6th century CE). But it preserves earlier traditions and explicitly applies Psalm 2:7 to the Messiah. That shows that Jewish tradition, not just Christian, saw Psalm 2 as messianic.

So:
– Pre‑Christian: Qumran (4QFlorilegium) uses Psalm 2 in a messianic way.
– Post‑Christian but Jewish: Talmud preserves messianic readings of Psalm 2.

Hebrews is not inventing a new use. It is participating in a Jewish pattern of reading Psalm 2 as part of the Davidic/messianic promise.

2. Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8:
“But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…’” (Psalm 45:6–7)

Your objection:
Psalm 45 is just a wedding song for a Davidic king, not messianic, and “elohim” there doesn’t have to mean God.

Let’s deal with the text first.

Psalm 45 in its original context:
– A royal psalm celebrating the Davidic king’s marriage.
– The king is praised for justice, righteousness, and military strength.
– The psalmist addresses the king in exalted language.

The key phrase:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

The Hebrew:
Kis’akha Elohim olam va’ed.

There are three main options:
1) Vocative: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
2) Construct: “Your throne of God is forever and ever.”
3) Predicate: “Your throne is God forever and ever.”

Most major lexicons and many Jewish and Christian commentators recognize the vocative reading as grammatically valid: the king is addressed as “Elohim” in a royal, exalted sense.

You correctly noted that “elohim” can refer to judges, rulers, or spiritual beings, not only to God Himself. That is exactly the point: royal theology in the Tanakh can use “elohim” language for the Davidic king as God’s representative.

So what is Hebrews doing?

Hebrews takes this royal psalm, where the Davidic king is addressed with “elohim” language and an eternal throne, and applies it to the Son as the ultimate Davidic king. That is consistent with:
– The Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7).
– Royal psalms (Psalm 2, 45, 72, 89, 110).
– Jewish messianic expectation of a Davidic king whose reign is everlasting.

You asked for a specific Jewish source that applies Psalm 45 to the Messiah. You are right to call out the need for accuracy.

Midrash Rabbah on Numbers:
You are correct that Psalm 45:6–7 is not explicitly cited there. My earlier reference was imprecise. What matters is not that one specific midrash mentions those exact verses, but that Jewish tradition recognizes royal psalms as part of messianic expectation.

There are Jewish sources (including some medieval commentators) that see Psalm 45 as having messianic overtones, but even if you reject that, the core point stands:

Psalm 45:
– Exalts the Davidic king.
– Uses “elohim” language.
– Speaks of an eternal throne.

Hebrews:
– Sees Jesus as the ultimate Davidic king.
– Applies that royal language to Him.
– Uses it to argue for His exalted status.

That is a theological extension of a royal psalm, not a random misuse.

3. Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10–12

Hebrews 1:10–12:
“And, ‘You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands…’” (Psalm 102:25–27)

You said:
“Psalm 102 is about Jerusalem. That’s where we stop. Anything after that is theology.”

Psalm 102 in its original context:
– A lament of an afflicted person.
– A prayer for the restoration of Zion.
– In the latter part of the psalm, the speaker turns to YHWH as the eternal creator whose years never end.

The verses Hebrews quotes are explicitly about YHWH:
– YHWH created the heavens and the earth.
– YHWH remains the same.
– YHWH’s years have no end.

Hebrews’ argument:
– In verse 8, the Father speaks to the Son.
– In verses 10–12, the Father applies a YHWH passage to the Son.

You say that is “just theology.” Yes, it is theology. But it is theology built on the text:
– The Son is already described in Hebrews 1:3 as the “radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature.”
– The Son is already said to be the one through whom God made the world (Hebrews 1:2).
– Therefore, applying a YHWH‑creator passage to the Son is consistent with the claim that the Son shares in the divine identity.

You ask:
“Where did God say He needed help? Where did God say He would come as a man and sacrifice Himself?”

You are jumping ahead to atonement and incarnation. Hebrews 1 is not yet arguing about sacrifice. It is arguing about who the Son is:
– Pre‑existent.
– Agent of creation.
– Sharing the attributes of YHWH (eternal, unchanging).

That is not a misuse of Psalm 102. It is a theological conclusion drawn from:
– The YHWH language in Psalm 102.
– The Son’s role in creation as stated in Hebrews 1:2.
– The broader Jewish wisdom tradition where God’s wisdom or word is described as pre‑existent and involved in creation (Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, Wisdom of Solomon 7–9).

4. Your demand: “Support it with the Tanakh, not with the writings of man.”

You keep saying:
“Explain and support it with the Tanakh, not with the writings and musing of man.”

But the very things you are rejecting as “writings of man” are:
– Jewish interpretations of the Tanakh.
– Jewish textual traditions (LXX, DSS).
– Jewish wisdom literature.
– Jewish messianic expectations.

You cannot demand “Tanakh only” and then ignore how Jews themselves read the Tanakh in the Second Temple period and beyond. Hebrews is not operating in a vacuum. It is part of that Jewish interpretive world.

5. “Did Jesus fulfill all that the Messiah was to do?”

Now you are back to your original question:
“Did Jesus fulfill all that was said the Messiah is to do?”

That is a legitimate question, but it is a different debate:
– First question: Does Hebrews misuse the Tanakh?
– Second question: Is Jesus the true Messiah according to the Tanakh?

On the first question:
Hebrews uses:
– Psalm 2 (Davidic sonship).
– Psalm 45 (royal, “elohim” language).
– Psalm 102 (YHWH as eternal creator).
– Deuteronomy 32:43 (angels worshipping Him, in the longer Jewish textual tradition).
– Other royal and wisdom themes.

It does so in line with:
– Davidic covenant theology.
– Royal psalms.
– Jewish wisdom and divine identity concepts.
– Jewish textual traditions (LXX, DSS).

You have not shown that Hebrews misquotes or corrupts the text. You have only asserted that its theological conclusions are impossible because you reject Jesus as Messiah and reject any participation of the Son in the divine identity.

On the second question:
“Did Jesus fulfill all messianic expectations?”
That requires:
– A careful list of what the Tanakh actually says about the Messiah.
– Distinguishing between:
– What is explicitly in the Tanakh.
– What is later rabbinic expectation.
– What is Christian interpretation.

We can have that discussion, but it is not honest to pretend that Hebrews 1 is “twisting” the Tanakh when:
– It quotes real passages.
– It uses real Jewish textual traditions.
– It follows real Jewish interpretive patterns.

You asked:
“Are these passages correctly being applied to Jesus or taken out of context?”

The direct answer:
– Psalm 2: Correctly applied within Davidic/messianic theology.
– Psalm 45: Correctly applied as royal, Davidic, “elohim” language to the ultimate king.
– Psalm 102: Correctly applied within a framework where the Son is the agent of creation and shares YHWH’s eternal attributes.
– Deuteronomy 32:43 (longer reading): Correctly used from a Jewish textual tradition older than the Masoretic Text.

You may reject the conclusions, but you have not shown that Hebrews is misusing the text. You have only shown that you disagree with its theology.

If you want to continue, we can move to your core question:
“Is Jesus the true Messiah according to the Tanakh?”
But that will require you to:
– Define clearly what you believe the Tanakh says the Messiah must do.
– Distinguish between Tanakh text and later rabbinic expectations.
– Actually engage the passages, not just assert “He never fulfilled a thing.”

Right now, you are not refuting Hebrews. You are rejecting Jesus. Those are related, but not identical issues.

[Lightenup]

@Keith

James 1:5 tells us that if we lack wisdom, we should ask God. With that in mind, would you be willing to sincerely ask God the Father whether His Son, Jesus, ever began to exist, or whether the Son has always existed in some manner? I am not asking you to accept my view—only to ask the Father directly and be open to whatever He shows you.

 

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

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

Let’s go point by point.

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

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

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

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

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

You also ignored the central point:

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

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

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

This proves two things:

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

You dismissed this without comment.

3. PSALM 2 AND 2 SAMUEL 7

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

Were Jews before Christianity interpreting Psalm 2 messianically?
Yes.

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew text calls the Davidic king “Elohim.”

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

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים
“Your throne, O God…”

Every major lexicon recognizes this vocative reading.

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

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

5. PSALM 102 AND THE LOGIC OF HEBREWS 1

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

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

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

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

That does not address the argument.
The question is:

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

You have not answered this.

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

Same divine attributes = participation in the divine identity.

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

6. MASORETIC TEXT VS. LXX

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

The problem is:

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

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

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

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

7. “NOTHING ABOUT JESUS IN THE TANAKH”

This is simply your conclusion, not an argument.

You have not addressed:

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

These are Jewish sources, not interacting with the manuscripts.

You are not interacting with:

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

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

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

Right now, you’re avoiding it.

[Lightenup]

@Keith

You said this

“So The true God=Jehovah gave Jesus(Word) authority. If Jesus were God he would already have had the authority.”

If within the unity of Jehovah there is one God and one Lord who are a father and son, then one can expect that the son would be perfectly under the authority of the father if it were a perfect father/son relationship. If the father gives his son authority over all things in heaven and on earth after the son accomplishes his father’s will, it shows that the son is trusted by his father to be able to handle that level of authority.

The Son is perfect and always under the authority of his perfect Father or the Son would not be perfect. The Son can do everything he sees his Father doing. The Father provides the vision, the Son carries out the vision.

The unity of Jehovah is the perfect Father with the perfect Son, not the Father apart from the perfect Son.

Apart from the Son, the Father did not create anything.

Apart from the Father, the Son did not create anything.

But they did create and they created together. Both receive the same honor of being the creator, Jehovah.

Also, Jesus is the God of this Messianic age in 2 Cor 4:4, not satan.

[Lightenup]

@Keith

Do you have a response?

[Lightenup]

@Keith

“You missed that theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4 does have the article — but the presence or absence of the article never determines whether theos refers to the true God or a false god. Greek doesn’t work that way. The article marks specificity, not deity.”

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

You didn’t address anything I wrote.
You simply repeated your conclusion: “Hebrews isn’t about Jesus.”
But you didn’t engage a single textual point.

Let’s be clear about what actually happened in your reply:

1. You did not answer the Septuagint issue.
Every “corruption” you claimed was shown to be the LXX wording — the Jewish Scriptures used in the first century.
You ignored this completely.

2. You did not answer the Dead Sea Scrolls evidence.
Deut 32:43 (“let all the angels of God worship Him”) appears in 4QDeutq.
You ignored this too.

3. You did not answer the fact that Psalm 2 was interpreted messianically by Jews before Christianity.
Dead Sea Scrolls, Targum Jonathan, and early rabbinic sources all apply Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
You didn’t touch it.

4. You did not answer the grammar of Psalm 45.
The Hebrew text itself calls the Davidic king “Elohim.”
You skipped that as well.

5. You did not answer the logic of Hebrews 1.
The argument is simple:
– The Father speaks to the Son (v. 8)
– The Father applies a YHWH‑passage to the Son (vv. 10–12)
You didn’t refute the argument.
You just restated your conclusion.

Instead of addressing any of these points, you shifted to:
“Listen to Skobac, Federow, Hajioff, Singer.”

Appealing to modern speakers is not a substitute for dealing with the actual text, the actual manuscripts, or the actual Jewish interpretations that existed before Christianity.

You said the Tanakh “belongs to them.”
Fine — then deal with the fact that *their own pre‑Christian sources* contradict your claims:

– The LXX is a Jewish translation.
– The DSS preserve the longer Deut 32:43.
– Jewish tradition applied Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
– Jewish royal theology calls the king “Elohim.”
– Jewish wisdom literature presents a pre‑existent co‑creator.

These are not “Christian rote answers.”
These are Jewish texts, Jewish translations, and Jewish interpretations that existed long before the NT.

If you want to argue Hebrews misuses the Tanakh, then you need to engage the actual textual data — not dismiss it and tell me to “change my world.”

Right now, you’re avoiding the evidence, not answering it.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Your entire critique rests on a single assumption that is historically false:

You are comparing Hebrews to the medieval Masoretic Text (MT), finalized around 900–1000 AD.
Hebrews is quoting the Septuagint (LXX), the Jewish Scriptures used in the first century.
Every “corruption” you think you see is simply the LXX wording, not a Christian invention.

Once that is acknowledged, your argument collapses.

1. “These verses aren’t in the Tanakh.”
They *are* in the Tanakh used by Jews in the time of Jesus.
Deut 32:43 (“Let all the angels of God worship Him”) appears in the LXX AND in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutq).
The MT is simply shorter. Hebrews is quoting the older Jewish textual tradition.

2. Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7
You assert these are not Messianic.
But Jewish sources *before Christianity* apply Psalm 2 to the Messiah:
– Dead Sea Scrolls (4QFlorilegium)
– Targum Jonathan
– Rabbinic tradition (Sukkah 52a)
The same is true of the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7.
Your interpretation is post‑Christian, not ancient.

3. Psalm 104:4
You object that “winds” are messengers, not angels.
But the Hebrew *mal’akhim* means messengers/angels, and the LXX translators (Jewish scholars) rendered it “angels.”
Hebrews quotes the LXX. Nothing is “twisted.”

4. Psalm 45
The Hebrew text itself calls the Davidic king “Elohim” (“Your throne, O God…”).
This is not a Christian corruption.
It is Jewish royal theology. Hebrews applies the royal psalm to the Messiah exactly as Jewish tradition did.

5. Psalm 102
Yes, the psalm speaks of YHWH.
That is precisely why Hebrews uses it.
The argument is:
– The Father speaks to the Son (Heb 1:8)
– The Father applies a YHWH‑passage to the Son (Heb 1:10–12)
This is not “corruption.” It is a theological conclusion:
If the Son shares the attributes of YHWH (eternal, unchanging, creator),
then the Son participates in the divine identity.

You haven’t refuted the argument.
You’ve only assumed the conclusion is impossible.

6. The real issue
You are treating the medieval MT as the original Bible and the LXX as “corruption.”
But the LXX is older, widely used by Jews, and supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Hebrews quotes the Scriptures as they existed in the first century, not the Scriptures as edited in the 10th century.

Your critique fails because it is aimed at the wrong text.

 

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

In Psalm 102, the thing that “will be rolled up like a garment” is the created order itself—the heavens and the earth. Psalm 102:25–26 says that the heavens are the work of God’s hands, and that they “will perish,” and “will all wear out like a garment.”

The one who rolls them up (or “changes them like a robe”) is God—YHWH—the same subject of all the verbs in the passage (“laid,” “remain,” “change”). The imagery emphasizes that creation is temporary, but God is eternal.

Hebrews 1:10–12 quotes this passage and applies it directly to the Son, identifying Him with the eternal Creator whose years never end.

When you read the name of YHWH in the OT,  the pronouns “He” or “They” or “Us”can represent the unity of the Father, Son and Spirit, or the members within the unity, the Father or the Son or their Spirit.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

YHWH the Father of Jesus, identified His Son as the YHWH who laid the foundation of the earth and established the heavens as well in Hebrews 1:10-12.

Heaven and earth will be someday be rolled up like a garment by the Son.

YHWH is both God and Lord

[Lightenup]

@Proclaimer

More from Origen:

1. Psalm 102 → Hebrews 1:10–12 applied to the Son
Source: Contra Celsum 1.67
“In speaking of the Son he says: ‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth…’”

2. Psalm 102 → The Son as Creator
Source: De Principiis 1.2.2
“The Son… is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews to have laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens.”

3. Psalm 102 → The Son’s immutability
Source: De Principiis 1.2.8
“The Son… is said to be unchangeable: ‘Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.’”

4. Psalm 102 → Explicitly “said of the Son”
Source: Commentary on John 1.37
“It is said of the Son: ‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth…’”

5. Psalm 102 → Eternal years of the Son
Source: Homilies on Jeremiah 9.4
“Concerning the Son it is written: ‘Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.’”

6. YHWH who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob = the Son
Source: Contra Celsum 5.39
“The God who appeared to the patriarchs was the Logos of God… not the invisible Father.”

7. YHWH in the burning bush = the Son
Source: Homilies on Exodus 4.5
“The one who speaks to Moses from the bush is the Son of God.”

8. YHWH who speaks through the prophets = the Son
Source: De Principiis 1.2.6–7
“It was the Son of God who spoke in the prophets… the same Christ who later became man.”

9. YHWH who wrestled with Jacob = the Son
Source: Commentary on Genesis (fragment)
Origen identifies the divine figure who wrestles with Jacob as the Logos, not the Father.

10. YHWH who walked in the Garden = the Son
Source: De Principiis 4.4.1
Origen says the visible God who walked and spoke is always the Son, since the Father is invisible.

11. YHWH who destroyed Sodom = the Son
Source: Commentary on Genesis (fragment)
Origen says the “Lord” who rained fire from the Lord is the Logos.

12. YHWH who gave the Law = the Son
Source: Homilies on Exodus 12.4
Origen says the Son is the one who gave the Law to Moses.

13. YHWH who appeared to Isaiah = the Son
Source: Commentary on John 2.2
Origen affirms John 12:41: Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, the divine Lord on the throne.

14. YHWH who appeared to Joshua as “Captain of the Lord’s Host” = the Son
Source: Homilies on Joshua 2.1
Origen identifies the divine commander as Christ.

15. YHWH who spoke to Samuel = the Son
Source: Homilies on 1 Samuel (fragment)
Origen says the divine voice is the Logos, not the Father.

SUMMARY:
Origen consistently identifies the Son as the visible YHWH of the Old Testament—Creator, Lawgiver, the One who appears, speaks, saves, judges, and reigns. He applies Psalm 102 (a YHWH text) directly to the Son multiple times and treats all divine manifestations as the work of the Logos.

[Lightenup]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

 

[Lightenup]

@Proclaimer

The theos of John 1:1b identifies the theos of John 1:1c as the YHWH who laid the foundation of the world and the heavens were the work of His hands and not only that but that as YHWH, this theos who is the Son, will at a future time, fold them up like a garment and they will be changed in Hebrews 1:10-12.

Amazing!

 

 

[Lightenup]

@Keith

Are you claiming that Jesus — the theos who now has all authority in heaven and on earth — is a false god?

[Lightenup]

@Keith

Which “theos” was given all authority in heaven and on earth after the resurrection of Christ?

[Lightenup]

@Keith

Thank you — you said the “You” in both Psalm 102 and Hebrews 1:10 is Jehovah.

So according to your own answer:

– The “You” in Psalm 102 = Jehovah
– The “You” in Hebrews 1:10 = Jehovah
– Hebrews 1:10 is spoken to the Son

Therefore the Father identifies the Son as Jehovah.

This is exactly the point I’ve been asking you to consider.

What you don’t seem to understand yet is that Jehovah is both God and Lord, Father and Son.
Jehovah is the name of their unity as well as each member of the unity, the Father, the Son as well as their Holy Spirit.

The Son cannot be the Firstborn of God the Father AND  the first created. To be the literal Firstborn, He would have to exist beforehand in order to be born/brought forth. Therefore possessed and brought forth as the Firstborn cannot mean created.

I understand a literal son of God the Father. That type of son would be the only kind to be the exact representation of the Father’s eternal nature as well as an only begotten son.

The Unity, named Jehovah, takes a single pronoun such as “He” similar to any other unity which will take a single pronoun, either he, she, or it. The Bride of Christ is an example. The “Bride” is not just one person but many members and takes the singular pronoun “she/her.”

When the pronoun is plural as in Gen 1:26, “us”, that would be one member talking to the other member within the Unity. In verse 27, it wouldn’t say then “gods” made man because the Father and Son are together as one God…two persons acting as one in their own unique way. One gives the vision, the other carries out the vision. Together they create, not separately but together.

[Lightenup]

@Keith

You are bringing up John 1:1 and 2 Corinthians 4:4, but those points don’t answer the specific question I asked you. That’s a discussion for another time.

Let’s stay with the passage I quoted, because it is the Father speaking, and the wording is identical to Psalm 102.

Hebrews 1:8 says clearly: “But about the Son He says…”

Then the Father continues speaking in vv. 10–12 and quotes Psalm 102:25–27 word for word.

Psalm 102 is addressed to Jehovah.

So my question remains:

1. In Hebrews 1:10, when the Father says to the Son, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth…”, who is the “You”?

2. In Psalm 102:25, “Of old You laid the foundation of the earth…”, who is the “You”?

These are the same words. The speaker is the Father. The recipient in Hebrews is the Son. The recipient in Psalm 102 is Jehovah.

I’m not asking about John 1:1 right now. I’m asking you to answer these two very simple questions from Hebrews 1 and Psalm 102 according to the NASB1995 translation.

[Lightenup]

@Keith

How do you define “Christians?”

Jehovah the Father—the One speaking to David’s Lord in Psalm 110:1—identifies His Son in Hebrews 1 with the Jehovah described in Psalm 102.

Psalm 110:1 shows Jehovah (the Father) speaking to someone distinct: “my Lord.”

Psalm 102 describes Jehovah as the eternal, unchanging Creator of heaven and earth.

Hebrews 1 quotes Psalm 102 and applies it directly to the Son—while the speaker is still the Father.

So my question:

Why does the Father identify His Son with the very Jehovah who created the heavens and the earth?

[Lightenup]

@Keith

One of my sons lives in NY also. I’m in TN, in the Bible Belt of America. 🙂

So you have been a JW basically all your life. Do JW’s say that they are Christians? Do you know where in the Bible it is written where God the Father identifies Jesus as Jehovah?

[Lightenup]

@Keith
Hi Keith, thanks for joining me over here. Could you tell me a little about yourself like when you became a JW and anything you would like me to know about you? Do you live in the States?

[Author]

Posts