The passage speaks for itself as it ascribes deity to Christ as God.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?
- Thread starter Alex2165
- Start date
Deity, undoubtedly. But there is no "was God" in Jn 1:1c ("was GOD" or "was god" depending on your choice of script) for "God" translates <article theos> but there is no article in Jn 1:1c. More rubbish has been written on Jn 1:1c than on any other verse, and every time you use "God" in connection with Jn 1:1c you are betraying your incomprehension of the Greek text. In any case, John 1:18 says Christ is the revelation of God.
GentleGospeller
Member
Your response is simply Incorrect in several ways, each of which is denying the plainest texts. The Son is also named JHVH (pg 69), as per many places in the OT:
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Gen 19:24 ויהוה המטיר על־סדם ועל־עמרה גפרית ואשׁ מאת יהוה מן־השׁמים׃
In Gen. 18, JHVH came down, and spoke with Abraham face to face, as with a friend. (Gen. 18:1,2,3,13,14,17-22,33.&c), as for instance:
Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Gen 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
Gen 18:33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
3 came down from Heaven. 1 was the "LORD" (JHVH, Jr., the Son), and the other two were "angels" (the covering cherubim) that always accompany the Son, being "Gabriel" and 'Herald' (Gen. 18:2,22,19:1). The "LORD" talked with Abraham, and the other two went ahead towards Sodom / Gomorrah. After the "LORD" was done talking with Abraham, He too went towards Sodom, as it is written:
Gen_19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
Gen_19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
It is obvious in Gen. 19:24, two are called "LORD" (JHVH). One "LORD" (JHVH, Jr. the Son) is standing on the earth, having come down with the two 'angels' (Gabriel & 'Herald'), and the other "LORD" (JHVH, Sr. the Father) is still in Heaven, having not come down.
The reason that Jhn. 17:11 states that the Son incarnate (in fallen flesh of mankind; Rom. 8:3, &c) has come in the Father's name, is because that is what the name "Jesus" means, "JHVH (JEHOVAH) is salvation", and Jesus came as the messenger of the Father to mankind as the "Word" of the Father to mankind (Jhn. 1:1, &c.). This does not mean that His name is also not JHVH, but He did not come in His own authority, for that was not His mission.
On page 70, several other examples are given, such as, "... The Person / Being of the Son, Jesus JEHOVAH ([H3444]; [H3068] “mr nyw”, “j'shûat j'hvàh"; Gen. 49:18; Exo. 14:13; 2 Chr. 20:17; Jon. 2:10; Psa. 119:174 HOT) or JEHOVAH Immanuel ((Psa. 46:7,11) Psa. 46:8,12 HOT, [H3068]; [H5973]; [H430], mr ... oy ... 77N”, "j'hvàh ... Mand ... élohéy”), “the LORD” (Gen. 19:24a.; Zec. 3:2a.; Heb. 1:10; Psa. 102:12,25-27; Heb. 13:4-8 KJB) ..."
There are more than these in the OT, and NT. So, no, the name JHVH is not the Father's alone as you incorrectly stated, choosing at this point to ignore the rest of the evidence which does not fit your belief system, as just shown to you.
As for prayer, it is not only addressed to the Father, in scripture. Peter gives such an example, as do others:
Psa_3:7 Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly.
Psa_55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa_109:26 Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy:
Mat_14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
You simply do not understand the NT's use of kyrios, for the OT place of JHVH, since by then, they were already being careful about the misuse of the divine name. Several examples were given in the book as well of this. The Son is seen being called JHVH (JEHOVAH) all over the place:
Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Heb 13:6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
2Ki_14:26 For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel.
Psa_30:10 Hear, O LORD, and have mercy upon me: LORD, be thou my helper.
Psa_54:4 Behold, God is mine helper: the Lord is with them that uphold my soul.
Mar_6:34 And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.
I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee: Gen_28:15; Deu_31:6, Deu_31:8; Jos_1:5; 1Sa_12:22; 1Ch_28:20; Psa_37:28; Isa_41:10, Isa_41:17
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Psa 102:12 But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.
Psa 102:13 Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come.
Psa 102:14 For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof.
Psa 102:15 So the heathen shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory.
Psa 102:16 When the LORD shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.
Psa 102:17 He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their prayer.
Psa 102:18 This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.
Psa 102:19 For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth;
Psa 102:20 To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death;
Psa 102:21 To declare the name of the LORD in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem;
Psa 102:22 When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD.
Psa 102:23 He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days.
Psa 102:24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
Psa 102:27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
GentleGospeller
Member
Again, you simply do not understand koine Greek, or John's intent in Jhn. 1:1a,b, or c; and either of the Holy Spirit which inspired the texts, since you also seem to deny His (Holy Ghost's) Personage / Being as well, and therefore cannot ever acknowledge these truths until you do (Jhn. 8:24,43; 1 Cor. 12:3).
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
As shown in the book's material, John is simply making a distinction between one Person / Being which is by eternal nature Deity (Jhn. 1:1b; ie. the Person / Being of the Father; Jhn. 1:18a,c), whom he calls "[the] God", "τον θεον" (ton theon), and the other Person / Being "with", "προς" (pros) (Gen. 1:1-31; Pro. 8:22-31; Jhn. 1:10; Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:19; Heb. 1:2, &c.) which is also by eternal nature Deity (Jhn. 1:1c; ie. the Person / Being of the Son - Jesus, Jhn. 1:17,18b), whom he calls "God", "θεος" (theos). It is not difficult to understand this, once you put away your false starting a prioric position. Daniel makes a similar distinction between the Father's Personage / Being (as "the Ancient of Days"; Dan. 7:9,13,22) and the Personage / Being of the Son (as "the son of man"; Dan. 7:13, whom is also called "angel" (Dan. 3:28; messenger [of the Father; the Father's message or word]), "son of God" (Dan. 3:25) and God (Dan. 2:47, 5:26 (connection to Dan. 8:13, the 'wonderful numberer'; ie "that certain saint"), 11:36, &c.).
"In the beginning", "εν αρχη" (en arche) refers to Genesis 1:1's, "In the beginning", in which there is given the "elohiym" (the Godhead, or the 3 mighties; plurality, as also shown in the book's material) and the other texts already provided just above.
"was", "ην" (en), refers to the same, in that such Persons / Beings about to be described already existed before that moment, and existed at that moment. Hence, John the Baptist's sayings, and Jesus' later saying,
Joh_1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he [Jesus] was before me.
Joh_1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he [Jesus] was before me.
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
"the Word", "ο λογος" (o logos) refers to the highest messenger / message (the living Gospel [Good news] itself) of the Father, the Person / Being of the Son in Gen. 1; 1 Jhn. 1:1-3,5:7b, and contextually in Jhn. 1, as per Jhn. 1:1-3,9-11,14-15,17-18.
"and", "και" (kai), in addition to, also, moreover, so that it was not just "the Word" by Himself "In the beginning", but another is about to be mentioned alongside "the Word", directing Him about creation, for the "God said" (Gen. 1:3, &c.) is the Personage of the Father speaking to "God made" (Gen. 1:7, &c.), the Personage of the Son, there, as already shown by many texts above.
"the Word", "ο λογος" (o logos), being the Personange / Being of the Son, as previously given
"was", "ην" (en), refers to the same as previous definition.
"with", "προς" (pros) states that another exists alongside the first Personage / Being (that of the Son), being the Personage / Being of the Father, as already cited previously above, called:
"[the] God", "τον θεον" (ton theon), the Personage / Being of the Father, as per Gen. 1:1-31; Pro. 8:22-31; Jhn. 1:10; Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:19; Heb. 1:2, &c., and the immediate context of John 1:14,18a,c. The Father is the "God of gods" (Dan. 2:47, 11:36), as even Jesus calls His own Father, "my God" (Jhn. 20:17).
This means that "the Word" (an individual Personage / Being; the Son) "was with" "[the] God" (an individual Personage / Being; the Father) "In the beginning" at creation. That is two Personages / two Beings under their respective identifications by John, by the Holy Ghost (the Eternal witness, "God saw").
"and", "και" (kai), in addition to, also, moreover, so that there is more information to be relayed by John, & by the Holy Ghost / Spirit, about who this "the Word" is in nature, so that the reader is not confused.
"the Word", "ο λογος" (o logos), being the Personange / Being of the Son, as previously given
"was", "ην" (en), refers to the same as previous definition.
"God", "θεος" (theos), meaning "God" by nature, per context, and referring to the Personage / Being of the Son, identified as "the Word" of the Father, per the context of John 1.
This is John's, as well the Holy Ghost's, description of Gen. 1's "elohiym", wherein the "God said" is identified as the Personage / Being of the Father, called by John "[the] God", "τον θεον" (ton theon), and Personage / Being standing by the Father's Person / Being, carrying out the instructions of the first, is identified and called by John, and by the Holy Ghost, "θεος" (theos), "God", being the "God made" after the command of the Father. This aligns with all of the other texts in which it is continually stated that the Father made all things by / through the Son, since the Son is the ultimate Personage / Being who carries out the will of the Father, for the Father, as the Father's "Word".
John 1:1, then clearly states that:
God (Deity, the Son) was with the God (Deity, the Father), in the beginning, and God (Deity, the Son) was the Word of the God (Deity, the Father).
The Third Personage / Being, is also God, but hidden behind the scenes in Jhn. 1:1, as the Eternal Witness, who inspired John to write of those events witnessed "in the beginning", being the Holy Ghost / Spirit, the very "God saw" Whom was also present "In the beginning", taking the snapshot of events for posterity and for truth.
Deny these facts, and you cannot ever (and I mean "ever") have a proper and fullness of understanding of salvation / redemption, the purposes and events involved, or even of the proper doctrines / teachings on any subject.
Jesus, the Son is assigned the proper noun, in Hebrews (by Paul citing OT), "ο θεος" (Heb. 1:8; courtesy of Psa. 45:6) and again "ο θεος" (Heb. 1:9), and even directly having the name JHVH (JEHOVAH) applied to Him, in Heb. 1:10, 13:6(,8), citing Psa. 102:12,24-27, &c. The reason that john does not do so in John 1:1, is because he, by the Holy Ghost, is making the distinction between the two Personages / Beings which are Deity. It is the inspired commentary on Gen. 1 by the Holy Ghost. The "midrash" of Gen. 1 to use a phrase. John is simply saying that Jesus existed at the beginning, created the world on behalf of the Father's will at the Father's side, and then this eternal Son came (was sent by the Father) to dwell in the fallen flesh (Rom. 8:3) of mankind as "God manifest in the flesh", "θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι" (theos ephanerwthe en sarke); 1 Tim. 3:16; notice not "τον θεον" (the Father), but rather "theos" (the Son)), and came "to his own" (His own peoples that He had taken out for Himself way back in Exodus, as "the LORD" (JHVH, JEHOVAH) "God" in the burning bush, as the "angel" (Messenger / Word) of the LORD God His Father (the other JHVH, JEHOVAH the Ancient of Days)).
You have misunderstood why John is only using the "proper noun" with the Father in John 1:1. It is simply to distinguish two Personages / Beings which are both eternal Deity and called "God". It's like distinguishing two personages / beings called "Boss", both of which are of the nature humanity. You also do not seem to understand how koine Greek works, and translation into English. There are plenty of places in the GNT TR where the definite article is used (ie Jhn. 1:35, "ο ιωαννης" (o iwannes), literally "the John"), and not translated into English, as English does not really work that way too well, and would make for a more difficult reading to the English reader, and places in the GNT TR in which a proper noun is not given, and simply 'anarthous' and yet is translated into the English with the definite article "the" (Jhn. 1:1,18, 3:16, 8:12, 10:7, &c.), since the English would require it in such places to read smoothly, rather than harshly.
GentleGospeller
Member
Of course the Son is the revelation of the Father (Jhn. 14:7; &c.), for how could it be otherwise? That is not in question. The question (you have raised) is on the eternal nature of the Son (Deity), which He always has, even before His incarnation into the fallen flesh (Rom. 8:3) of mankind. This is addressed in several places, such as Php 2:
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Thus, God (theos) is the revelation of the God (ton theon), in human flesh.
1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. [P.S. if you need the MS evidence for this verse I will provide it in detail]
Paul is in agreement with himself, as is the Holy Ghost / Spirit. Theos (the Son) was manifest in the flesh, not ton theon (the Father).
Saying that "Christ is the revelation of God" does not in any way take away from the facts that "Christ" is eternal Deity in nature (Jhn. 3:16), revealing the Deity (Jhn. 17:3) of the Father. You simply choose to leave the Deity of Christ out of the picture because you have an a prioric bias upon that part. You choose not to see or acknowledge that part. As such, you cannot ever have proper salvation / redemption (Jhn. 8:24). You do not believe that Deity came to dwell in the fallen flesh of mankind, and so not believing, cannot have victory over sin (1 Jhn. 3:4), ever, since you have no pattern to follow, no substitute to take your place, as the book material also lays out in detail. See "QUESTION 043: CAN A CREATURE (EVEN A HIGHLY EXALTED ONE) HAVE DIED FOR THE SIN OF ADAM, & OF THE WHOLE WORLD?", pages 523-532.
Actually, I am not interested in your question, as it is beyond debating that the Son is eternal.
I regard myself as wiser than you in this matter, which has occupied my attention for many years. You may have cause to eat your words.
There is nothing clear about your confounding of deity and God. "God" is a proper noun, the articled Greek name of the Father, i.e. <o theos> = "the god" = "God," whereas "deity" denotes anyone having the properties of God, which includes the Logos. Deity is distributable, but the name of the Father belongs to the Father alone, although the authority of the name may be conferred, which is what is meant by Christ saying the Father gave him his name, i.e. the name of the Father, which you seem to deny.
Have the humility to accept that you've yet to get a handle on the English language, let alone Greek.
I do not accept any of the above. Heb 1:9 in English bibles is in direct conflict with the very definition of the "God" word as meaning "The Supreme Being." By the English definition of "God", it is impossible for God to have a God, and yet God in Heb 1:9 is said to have a "God." This is meaningless. God is defined as one who has no God.
The use of the vocative article in a vocative context does not confer proper noun status. The article is vocative in Heb 1:8, because the vocative of <theos> was not commonly used in Greek. Thus <o theos> as a proper noun is not associated with Christ in Heb 1:8. Also, elohim in Ps 45:6 lacks the article in Hebrew, so there is no case for seeing the Greek article as conferring proper noun status in Heb 1:8.
As to Ps 102, it is sometimes the case that YHWH is used to refer to both Father and Son acting in concert. Ps 102 is such a case. There is in such cases no plausible grammatical argument for attributing YHWH to the Son independently of the Father, just because they are "one." Again your
thesis is invalid.
Rather Ps 110:1 clearly reveals that the Son considered independently of the Father is not YHWH, but that the Father is YHWH.
"God" was not manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16, because the oldest Greek manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus etc, and the Latin Vulgate read "who," not "God". The manuscripts were corrupted by the later pro-Trinitarian Byzantine text form.
You have misunderstood the Hebrew religion. There is only one God, and one person who is God, the Father. You are preaching polytheism in teaching two Gods: which is a Greek corruption, and two gods isn't Hebrew either. Jesus only acknowledged one God, his Father: John 17:3.
I agree that the lack of an article isn't always significant in Greek, especially in prepositional usage, but in the predicate construction, the lack of an article before the predicate noun is highly significant as it prevents a proper title being assigned by the predicate construct. However I accept <theos> in the NT context is monadic: thus Jn 1:1c is limited to the son being the image (and revelation) of the Father: Col 1:15, 2 Cor 4:4 etc. You should not attempt to go beyond what is written. The apostles all agree with each other. Such is beyond contention.
GentleGospeller
Member
I notice that you are "not interested" in my question. The reason is your a prioric worldview which denies the facts provided.
GentleGospeller
Member
That is simply 'you' referring to 'you' and provided no substance for such a stance, other than 'you'. It is a circular, fallacious position, built simply on your own 'imagination' of yourself, as superior to others. A terrible complex to have.
GentleGospeller
Member
Error, hoary with age, does not make such the truth, ever. The length of time you have not believed the truth, and have believed yourself over the stated texts, does not prove (in any case) for your position to be accurate. Traditions in Romanism, likewise, are long-winded, and long-aged, as well, but they are still error, no matter how long they have been laborious carried, expounded, believed, taught, and nor matter how many or few have believed in those errors.
GentleGospeller
Member
I am not confusing the two words, Deity and God. I am explaining what I mean by the word God, in the context, which is inclusive of the identity of the nature of Deity. I am not merely explaining a position in this case. Yours is the confusion of my response, and the reason I provided the bracketed material.
GentleGospeller
Member
Not in question. Already agreed to, already my position. Thank you for agreeing to my position.
GentleGospeller
Member
Incorrect. The Noun "God", "τον θεον", "ton theon" (Jhn. 1:1b) is not a "name" of the Father. The noun serves as multiple identifiers for the Father's Person / Being, in Nature and in Office / Position. Again, it is not "the articled Greek name" of the Father. The Father's name, has been, was then, and always will be JHVH (JEHOVAH), as it is written in scripture.
GentleGospeller
Member
As I have shown - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? You are again incorrect, as your position is simply not the case. I provided a detailed explanation that the Son is also "JHVH" as well, and also provided other texts for consideration as well, when I said,
"... The Person / Being of the Son, Jesus JEHOVAH ([H3444]; [H3068] “mr nyw”, “j'shûat j'hvàh"; Gen. 49:18; Exo. 14:13; 2 Chr. 20:17; Jon. 2:10; Psa. 119:174 HOT) or JEHOVAH Immanuel ((Psa. 46:7,11) Psa. 46:8,12 HOT, [H3068]; [H5973]; [H430], mr ... oy ... 77N”, "j'hvàh ... Mand ... élohéy”), “the LORD” (Gen. 19:24a.; Zec. 3:2a.; Heb. 1:10; Psa. 102:12,25-27; Heb. 13:4-8 KJB) ..."
You addressed none of those things. Simply hand-waved the material by not responding to any of it. Ignoring the evidence is not evidence for your position, nor is it evidence against my evidenced position.
GentleGospeller
Member
Again, no. It was not merely "the authority of the name" which was "conferred", but the Son actually has the name of His Father, as the Son is the "express image" of the Father's Person (Heb. 1:1-3), and has the actual name of His Father, being Jr. as such, per Heb. 1:8-13, &c. among the places I have already shown, that you choose to not engage with.
GentleGospeller
Member
You accuse me of not being humble through inference, based upon the standard of 'yourself', when it is yourself that said, "I regard myself as wiser than you in this matter ..." I would never say such a thing to you being under the Holy Ghost / Spirit.
You are of course, free, in your prerogative, and 'spirit', to continue to accuse me, or any, but I have demonstrated to any my knowledge and experience in the languages under discussion. The (linked) book material itself is additional documented evidence of such as well. Therefore, I have no need to defend further that knowledge or experience, since it stands for itself and will bear the witness / testimony of time and others.
GentleGospeller
Member
Of course not. As I said, you deny the truth of the matter because of your a prioric denial of such. It is that simple. A person who denies that 2+2=4, will of course, accept any other 'answer' (such as -1, 2, blue, pink fuzzy bunny slippers, &c) to suit themselves, simply to have a response, though it can never logically follow rightly.
GentleGospeller
Member
See, your incorrect a prioric is showing, since the word "God" does not only mean "The Supreme Being", even as a standard dictionary will show - Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - God . It simply means a Ruler by which others look up to. It is like the word Boss. A Boss can be the highest ruler over others, or can also be a ruler over others with a Boss above them. The word has origins in meaning "that which is invoked" or "called upon", 'looked up to'. One of the definitions is indeed "Supreme Being", but that is not the end of the range of the word.
"... from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." The notion could be "divine entity summoned to a sacrifice." ..." - God - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
The same word, "God", as used through the OT (el, elohiym, &c.) and NT (theos, theon, &c.) is used of all manner of those which are not "The Supreme Being", such as 'idols', created fallen angels, created unfallen angels, created unfallen mankind, created fallen mankind. None of them are "The Supreme Being". Obviously. Admit this, and your entire point and statement is invalidated. If you need those references, they may be provided to you and are already provided in the linked book material.
You simply have an incorrect a prioric, which denies that there are at least two (Father & Son) Whom are "God" (Deity in nature) (Supreme over creation in authority). You cannot seem to include that there is hierarchy between them two with such natures (Jhn. 17:3, 3:16, respectively) and positions. You seem to only be able to include a hierarchy which at the same time denies the eternal (Deity) nature of the Son in His eternal relationship with the Father (irrespective of Php. 2, and all of the other texts provided). By so doing, you have placed an attribute of the Father into question at some point in eternity past, making the Father without a Son, and thus by definition not a Father at such a point in reverse. You presently have a changeable, maleable, mercurial 'God' at that point, which can 'gain' an attribute, as "Father", which places into question every other attribute as well.
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.
Heb 1:9 ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην και εμισησας ανομιαν δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος ο θεος σου ελαιον αγαλλιασεως παρα τους μετοχους σου
The Father is speaking to the Son (Heb. 1:8, "But unto the Son he saith ..."), by the Holy Ghost / Spirit, and Paul, under the same inspiration is citing Psa. 45:6-7, and is using the Psalms, to equate nature of Deity to the Son (thus "God" in the highest sense of the word, who sits on the eternal Throne of Deity with the Majesty on High, or the Father's Person / Being, Heb. 1:3, 8:1, &c.)), since as Hebrews 1:3 states, of the Son, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person".
Thus according to the OT and NT text the Father (thy [the] God, ο θεος) when speaking of the Son's own nature and position, says, that the Son is also Deity by nature, and Ruler over all creation, as by position God, (therefore God, σε ο θεος). The God (Father) of the God (Son) is speaking authoritatively on this matter.
Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Psalms 45:7 HOT - כסאך אלהים עולם ועד שׁבט מישׁר שׁבט מלכותך׃
Psalms 44:7 Greek OT - ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.
Psalms 45:8 HOT - אהבת צדק ותשׂנא רשׁע על־כן משׁחך אלהים אלהיך שׁמן שׂשׂון מחבריך׃
Psalms 44:8 Greek OT - ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.
Hebrews 1:9 (KJB) was translated by the following committee, and checked by the others, with considerations by the church bishops and others, and with final considerations as well:
The second Oxford Company: The Gospels, Acts and Revelation
Thomas Ravis, 1560 - 1609:
Dr. Ravis was rector of All Hallows, Barking, 1591; canon of Westminster, 1592; Dean of Christ Church, 1596; Bishop of Gloucester, 1605 and lastly bishop of London in 1607. He was famous for his “eminent learning, gravity, and prudence.”
George Abbot, 1562 - 1633:
Dr. Abbot was Master of University College, Oxford, 1597; Dean of Winchester, 1600; Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 1609 and Archbishop of Canterbury in 1612.
Richard Eedes, 1555 - 1604:
Dr. Eedes was prebendary of Salisbury, 1584; prebendary of Hereford, 1590; queen’s chaplain and Dean of Worcester in 1596. He was greatly admired for his preaching, as well as his discourse which was said to be both excellent and polite. He died in November 1604, soon after the translation was begun.
Giles Tomson, 1553 - 1612:
Dr. Tomson was fellow of All Souls; queen’s chaplain; rector of Pembroke, Herefordshire; Dean of Windsor, 1602 and Bishop of Gloucester in 1611. Dr. Tomson died in 1612, “to the great grief of all that knew the piety and learning of the man; after he had taken a great deal of pains, at the command of King James, in translating the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Apocalypse.” He was loved for being “brief, learned and discreet.”
Henry Saville, 1549 - 1622:
Dr. Saville was fellow of Merton, 1565; was Warden of Merton, 1585; and Provost of Eton in 1596. He was knighted in 1604. He founded the Saville professorships of geometry and astronomy at Oxford.
- a. Dr. Saville was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his education, skill with languages, and knowledge of the Word, that he became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father Henry VIII.56
- b.“He is chiefly known, however, by being the first to edit the complete works of John Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers.”57
Fellow of St. John’s College, 1575; Regius Professor of Greek. He resigned this post to work on the Bible translation. Later vicar of Wafting in Sussex and afterwards Canon of Christ Church.
Ralph Ravens, 15?? - 1615:
Dr. Ravens was vicar of Easton Magna in Essex. Also, there was a person of this name of Queen’s College, M.A. in 1595, and Sub-Dean of Wells in 1607.
John Harmar, 15?? - 1613:
Dr. Harmar was fellow of New College, 1574; Regius Professor of Greek, 1585 and Warden of Winchester College in 1596. He was “a most noted Latinist, Grecian, and divine.” He translated Beza’s Sermons into English.
Leonard Hutten, 1557 - 1632:
Dr. Hutten was vicar of Floore, 1601 and prebendary of St. Paul’s, 1609.
John Aglionby, 1566 - 1609:
Royal chaplain, Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. It is believed Dr. Aglionby was appointed to the translation committee to replace Dr. Eedes who died soon after the work began in 1604.
James Mountague (Montagu), 1568 - 1618:
Dr. Mountague was first Master of Puritan Sydney Sussex College, Cambridge, 1595; Dean of Lichfield, 1603; Dean of Worchester, 1604; Bishop of Bath and Wells, 1608; Bishop of Winchester, 1616; edited and translated the works of King James I, 1616. There is some question as to Mountague’s participation.
You seem to be claiming to be "wiser" than all these godly men, and their collective knowledge under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and if so, that is grievously arrogant.
Are you also claiming to be "wiser" than these men, too, in modern renditions? - Hebrews 1:9 - Bible Gateway
In Hebrews 1:9, it is clear in any language, that the Son is Deity, being of the nature of the Father (Heb. 1:3), and of the same authority (Supreme) over creation as the Father (Heb. 1:3), and having the same name as the Father (Heb. 1:4). That the name of the Son stems from the Father's name is not in question here. Yet they share the name, even as my own father's name (Jr.) shares his father's name (Sr.). Where do you think this phenomena originates from? Merely humanity?
GentleGospeller
Member
No. 'You' mean by your own private definition it is "impossible", but it is not "impossible" according to the actual text and its own definitions (Isa. 28;10,13). I cited at least Webster's 1828 in my response, and with scripture evidence as well, and the linked book material, which also gives further materials. Simply refusing the accepted definitions of the word/s and replacing it with 'you' is, again, not evidence for your position, nor evidence against the documentation of my position.
So, since the nature of the Son is Deity (Heb. 1:3; Php. 2:6, &c.), and so is the Father's (also Deity), and the Son in eternal hierarchial submission to the Father (Exo. 20:12; &c.), it is assuredly (scripturally) "possible" and "actual" that the Son (God), has a Father (God). Thus God has a God. Even as humanly speaking a Boss (human) can have a Boss (human), even in the same family business.
It is only "meaningless" to you, because of your faulty starting point, 'you', rather than the text in what it says of itself, and your own definitions which denies the other definitions and uses. You see, I do not need 'me', 'you' or 'them' to interpret anything of the text (and indeed, forbidden to do so, 2 Pet. 1:20), but the text plainly says what it says, and interprets itself (Gen. 40:8; Isa. 28:101,3, &c.), because God already does so therein (Gen. 40:8) and mankind ought only amen such (1 Pet. 4:11).
No, the Bible does not give the definition of "God is defined as one who has no God.", but instead defines the Son as God (Deity in nature; Jhn. 3:16) who has a God (Deity in nature; Jhn. 17:3), His Father.
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.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh_20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
The only ones even mentioned in Gen. 1, which are creating is the Elohiym, 'Gods', or Godhead ('God').
The Father - Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
The Son - Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
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:
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
The Bible only defines that the Father has no God above Him. It does not do so for the Son, since being a Son, by nature of the Father's eternal nature, is God, having God over Himself in hierarchy.
GentleGospeller
Member
You confuse "commonly" with actually and / or only. It does not matter if was not 'common', even as you use the word "commonly", that there are 'uncommon' uses for such (as in Heb. 1:8, &c.), even using your own position against yourself. This is what you have admitted by inference and word use.
As for the "vocative" it simply conveys from the Greek, "direct address, allowing speakers to call out to or speak directly to someone. It is used to identify the person being addressed, often adding emphasis ...", which is what Paul stated, "But unto the Son he saith, ..." (Heb. 1:8a). That was never in question. It is already agreed to, admitted, and simply evidence already presented in my own (and the scriptural) position.
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 1:8 προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου
It is still, in koine Greek, directly addressing (vocative) to Person / Being of the Son, by the Person / Being of the Father, from the OT, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the OT text of Psa. 45:6, and uses the word (in citation), "God" (noun, in Hebrew or koine Greek):
Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Psalms 45:7 HOT - כסאך אלהים עולם ועד שׁבט מישׁר שׁבט מלכותך׃
Psalms 44:7 Greek OT - ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.
Sub example:
"The nominative marks the noun that performs the action of the verb or that is equated with the subject through a linking verb.
- ὁ ἀνήρ γράφει – “The man writes.” (subject)
- ὁ θεός φῶς ἐστιν – “God is light.” (predicate nominative)" - The Greek Case System: Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Vocative | New Testament Greek
That is an eternal throne, in the present tense, attributed to the Son, whom is identified as "God", by the Father.
This is, again, why it is written,
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This is why you cannot, at present, say that Jesus is "the Lord", the NT way of citing OT, the LORD, or JHVH (JEHOVAH). Those texts are citing the OT places where the word used is JEHOVAH (see example, 1 Kin. 8:33,35; 2 Chr. 6:24,26; Psa. 18:49, &c.). You cannot, at present, admit this, and will not, so long as you deny the Personhood / Being of the Holy Ghost, and Who He is, and He comes in the name of Jesus, even as Jesus came in the name of the Father.