Equality between the Father and Son

[placebofactor]

Did the Father have the power to raise or elevate his Son Jesus to the same rank as himself? Let us call the highest rank in heaven "the rank of God."

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

[Bible_Student]

This research should satisfy anyone concerned about the Hebrew language and what it says regarding this issue.

I can assure you that it does not. Simply quoting a few translations that render the text one way doesn't even scratch the surface of the issues with this passage.

The writer of Hebrews would have copied that verse verbatim, and there is no room for translating it as "your throne O God."

This is simply wrong, on both counts.

First, virtually every scholar who has ever written about Psalm 45, whether they are Jewish, Christian, or of no faith in particular -- and there is a lot of scholarship on this particular passage -- acknowledges that the word elohim in vs. 6 (in Hebrew it's verse 7) can certainly be a vocative ("O God").

They also point out that the targums, the ancient Jewish Aramaic paraphrases of the Bible, understood elohim here as a vocative ("O God"). All the way through the Middle Ages we have Jewish exegetes -- including, prominently, Rashi -- who understood it similarly, although they took it as referring to the king as a judge.

The various ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures also appear to render elohim here as a vocative. The LXX, Symmachus, and Theodotion render it as ho theos, which is often how the vocative is rendered, while Aquila renders it as thee, which is clearly vocative, as Jerome points out (see his Letter 65).

In fact, Abraham Cohen, a prominent Jewish scholar from the middle of the last century, in the Socoro biblical commentary series, notes here that "Thy throne, O God, appears to be the obvious translation" (The Psalms, pg. 141), but like other modern Jewish commentators, finds theological and contextual reasons to render it differently.

Your assertion that there is "no room for translating it as 'your throne O God'" is therefore obviously false.

Second, the author of Hebrews clearly didn't "copy" this quotation from the Hebrew text of Psalm 45. Rather, Hebrews 1:8 is a nearly verbatim quote from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:6 (in the LXX its numbered 44:7).

This is relevant to how we understand Hebrews 1:8 because the LXX rendering is, as I noted above, perhaps more indicative of a vocative ("O God"), although the rendering "God is your throne" is also grammatically possible, albeit rather awkward.

Psalm 45:6 (and Hebrews 1:8 with it) is, ultimately, a notoriously difficult passage to interpret, so we simply cannot say, as you just did, that one translation is correct and all others are impossible. That grossly misunderstands the issues here.

The Greek noun expression "the God" has the same form in the Vocative as in the Nominative.

In Hebrew, the term "God" does not change according to these Greek cases.

Citing the LXX in Greek is not the same as quoting from the Masoretic Text in Hebrew, so the differences between the two languages ​​must be clear.

It's obvious that a single Bible translation into a modern language will never be sufficient proof of how a text should be translated from Biblical Hebrew or Greek. However, no one could cite all the existing versions of a text in a simple forum comment.

Incidentally, some grammatical clarifications of a text in its original language (such as those provided by forum member Tygger2 in previous posts) are more than sufficient to understand the most important details.

[Bible_Student]

In Hebrew, Psalms. 45:6a is like this:

Your throne
God
for ever.

There IS NOT any verb at all in the original language as much as there is not punctuation (like commas in modern languages), so the translator must supply the verb "to be" in the form "is" to give the sense HE THINKS is correct (and maybe one or more commas). The verbal form IS could be in different places according to the original expression, like:

1) Your throne IS God forever (here the term God is taken as a Nominative)
2) Your throne, God, IS forever (here the term God could be taken as Nominative OR Vocative).

Since the context calls "God" to a different person, what would be the correct translation of the text?

[historia]

The Greek noun expression "the God" has the same form in the Vocative as in the Nominative.

Right, ho theos can be rendered either as "the God" or "O God," which is why onewithhim's assertion above that there is "no room for translating it as 'your throne O God'" is clearly false. I'm glad you agree with me over against her on that point.

In Hebrew, the term "God" does not change according to these Greek cases.

Well yeah, of course. No one said that it did.

It just so happens, though, that the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6 is also somewhat ambiguoius as to whether elohim should be rendered as a vocative or not.

Citing the LXX in Greek is not the same as quoting from the Masoretic Text in Hebrew, so the differences between the two languages ​​must be clear.

If anyone was somehow confused on that point, hopefully they aren't any longer.

It's obvious that a single Bible translation into a modern language will never be sufficient proof of how a text should be translated from Biblical Hebrew or Greek. However, no one could cite all the existing versions of a text in a simple forum comment.

Indeed, you'll notice that my critique was not aimed at tygger2 for posting a single translation of Psalm 45:6, but rather at onewithim for imagining that a single translation "should satisfy anyone concerned about the Hebrew language and what it says regarding this issue."

Incidentally, some grammatical clarifications of a text in its original language (such as those provided by forum member Tygger2 in previous posts) are more than sufficient to understand the most important details.

But tygger2 didn't offer any "grammatical clarifications." He just posted a few translations of Hebrew 1:8 and a single translation of Psalm 45:6 that render the verse differently than "O God," while exerting a great deal of effort to assure us how super-duper smart and super-duper trinitarian some of those translators were.

Again, I don't fault him for that. Seeing different translations is useful. I just don't understand why anyone else would imagine that that alone is "sufficient to understand the most important details" here. If another forum member had merely listed out a few translations that rendered these verses with "O God," I don't imagine you or onewithhim would say that that by itself somehow "should satisfy anyone" about how this verse should be translated. So the same should be true of tygger2's posts.

[Bible_Student]

The expression "O God" is not a literal translation of the word "God". It is just a way of saying that the translator considers "God" to be in Vocative, so he adds "O" to say that the expression is invoking God, i.e. the translator is choosing to believe the word is in Vocative ... it is the way he thinks about what is written, not what the text actually says.

I wouldn't translate "O God" when the text only says "God". Translating "Your throne God forever" is clear enough and it can be interpreted both ways depending on where the reader makes the pause/breathing while reading the whole sentence, after throne or after God.

The Greek article "the" is not equivalent to the modern English interjection "O". Adding "O" to the text is not translating but interpreting.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Capbook in post #6]

Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:
“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”

University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”

And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”

The Message reads: “Your throne is God’s throne….”

NSB - God is your throne

Mace - "God is thy throne….”

Twentieth Century Translation - ‘God is thy throne….’

Another world-acclaimed scholar of trinitarian Christendom has translated this verse similarly and made some interesting comments. Trinitarian Dr. William Barclay,

“world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, was noted as a profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts .... He was the minister of Trinity Church, Renfrew, Scotland, and, later, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.”

Dr. Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.”

Noted trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either “Thy throne, O God” or “God is thy throne”/“thy throne is God” may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” - p. 339, Word Pictures in the New Testament.

The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).

Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ...’ in either case it is applicable to the mediatorial throne only.”

Excellent post. It shows that the NWT is not the only version that sees how Hebrews 1:8 should be translated.

[Capbook]

John 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.

So we have it from Christ, The Son of God, that He is very obviously NOT equal to His Father.

And, of course, we also have it from Christ, the Son of God, that His Father IS His God, just as His Father is our God.

John 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.

These are UNAMBIGUOUS verses that provide absolutely no wiggle room for anyone to falsely claim that the Son is allegedly equal to the Father, or that the Son IS God (instead of the Son OF God, as Christ also plainly stated over 50 times in the Gospel accounts).

Yes, the Father is greater, higher in rank and position to Jesus but that does not mean that Jesus is not God.

Of course it means that Jesus is NOT God. When did Jesus EVER claim to be God? Answer: NOWHERE.

That is what is called "relational subordination",

No, it isn't. Falsely claiming that "Jesus is God" would be more aptly named "ignorance of relationship subordination" because it requires one to ignore the true, SPIRITUAL Father-Son relationship between God and His Firstborn/First-CREATED Son: Prince Michael/Christ.

they have different roles for the salvation of man but they are still the same in the nature of God.

God doesn't divide Himself into two or three separate parts/individuals so that He can allegedly role play as (i.e. pretend to be) His own son. God is ONE (Deut. 6:4; Zech. 14:9; Mark 12:29; Sura 2:163). And ONE MEANS ONE; it does NOT mean 2=1 or 3=1, etc., as man-made doctrines and traditions have attempted to redefine God.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The "I AM" our God [is] ONE God:

Zechariah 14:9 And the "I AM" shall be King over all the earth: in that Day shall there be one "I AM", and His name ONE (not a trinity).

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The First of all the Commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord:

Sura 2:163. And your God is ONE God. There is no god but He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

The unambiguous verses that the Father words Himself said to the Son, your throne, O God, is forever and ever.

That isn't "unambiguous" nor is it the Father saying that to the Son, is it? The above is an obvious and horrible mistranslation, in a vain attempt to support a man-made doctrine that satanically tries to divide God into different individuals, so that He can allegedly talk to Himself.

Hebrews 1:8-9 is meant to be a DIRECT QUOTE from Psalm 45:6-7, which is a Psalm David wrote about Christ his Lord (Psalm 110:1). It was Christ Who said of and to His Father:

Psalm 45:6 Thy Throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: the sceptre of Thy Kingdom [is] a Right sceptre.

Which is why Christ's Father (Who IS God) said the following to Christ:

Psalm 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Does Father -- Who is THE One True God -- have a God? No. Does Christ have a God? Yes. Father IS His God, as Christ has repeatedly told us, both in the body of Jesus and out of the body of Jesus, when Christ gave His Revelation to John.

Christ, while in the body of Jesus:

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, MY GOD MY GOD, why hast Thou forsaken me? (Eno. 89:20; Psalm 22; Isaiah 52:13 to 54:1; Sura 4:157-8.)

John 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.


And Christ after He ascended into heaven, i.e. while out of the body of Jesus:

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in The Temple of MY GOD, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of MY GOD, and the name of the city of MY GOD, [which is] New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from MY GOD: and (I will write upon him) my NEW name.

And how could God have "fellows", as in fellow angels? You do realize that the TITLE "Christ" means "The One Whom God Anointed" (usually shortened to "The Anointed One") don't you?

And there are two words "God" in the next verse, where the first refers to Jesus and the second refers to the Father. (Heb 1:8-9 and Psa 45:6-7).

No. The two references to "God" in the next verse are very obviously both to Father, to Whom Christ taught all of us to pray, just as Christ Himself does:

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name.

Don't you believe the Father's words as truth or not?

Isn't that a question you should be asking yourself?

Numbers 23:19 God [is] NOT a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do [it]? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

(see also: 1 Samuel 15:29; Job 9:32; Hosea 11:9; John 4:24)

How many times did Jesus refer to himself as "the Son of Man" in the Gospel accounts? OVER 80 TIMES. So the ONLY way someone could pretend that Jesus is God is if they ignore both Father's Words and those that Jesus actually spoke in HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of verses, in a vain attempt to privately interpret one verse which has very obviously been mistranslated.

I believe we have posted the original Hebrew of Psa 45:6 with corresponding Strong Concordance. Can you post the same?

Just because you "believe" that doesn't make it true, nor does it mean you have correctly understood either Ps. 45:6-7 or Heb. 1:1-9. And who wrote "Strong Concordance"? God, or men?

From Jesus words Himself said that "all the Father had are mine," is it not blasphemy if Jesus is not God?

Of course it isn't blasphemy, as Father GAVE everything to Christ, as Christ's INHERITANCE.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth.

John 5:19-20
5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do NOTHING of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that Himself doeth: and He will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Hebrews 1:1-4
1:1 God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [His] Son, whom He (God) hath appointed HEIR of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;
1:3 Who being the brightness of [His] glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by The Word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of His Majesty on high;
1:4 Being MADE so much better than the angels, as he hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they.

God clearly gave power to Christ. God clearly taught Christ everything Christ knows. God clearly doesn't "inherit" anything, as He created everything, including Prince Michael/Christ, God's Eldest/Firstborn Son.

It is, however, blasphemy to falsely claim that "Jesus (the human son of Mary) is God".

Romans 1:25 Who changed the Truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Ok, I bolded and colored blue your statement above.
Let me present to you your honest logic behind that statement;
1. Jesus as "Son of man" as His mother is human Mary. Is He man or not? You've already stated it honestly and logically above.
2. Jesus as "Son of God" as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why your honesty, and logical statement I colored blue above cannot be applied to the second question? Why and explain.

[A Freeman]

John 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.

So we have it from Christ, The Son of God, that He is very obviously NOT equal to His Father.

And, of course, we also have it from Christ, the Son of God, that His Father IS His God, just as His Father is our God.

John 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.

These are UNAMBIGUOUS verses that provide absolutely no wiggle room for anyone to falsely claim that the Son is allegedly equal to the Father, or that the Son IS God (instead of the Son OF God, as Christ also plainly stated over 50 times in the Gospel accounts).

Yes, the Father is greater, higher in rank and position to Jesus but that does not mean that Jesus is not God.

Of course it means that Jesus is NOT God. When did Jesus EVER claim to be God? Answer: NOWHERE.

That is what is called "relational subordination",

No, it isn't. Falsely claiming that "Jesus is God" would be more aptly named "ignorance of relationship subordination" because it requires one to ignore the true, SPIRITUAL Father-Son relationship between God and His Firstborn/First-CREATED Son: Prince Michael/Christ.

they have different roles for the salvation of man but they are still the same in the nature of God.

God doesn't divide Himself into two or three separate parts/individuals so that He can allegedly role play as (i.e. pretend to be) His own son. God is ONE (Deut. 6:4; Zech. 14:9; Mark 12:29; Sura 2:163). And ONE MEANS ONE; it does NOT mean 2=1 or 3=1, etc., as man-made doctrines and traditions have attempted to redefine God.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The "I AM" our God [is] ONE God:

Zechariah 14:9 And the "I AM" shall be King over all the earth: in that Day shall there be one "I AM", and His name ONE (not a trinity).

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The First of all the Commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord:

Sura 2:163. And your God is ONE God. There is no god but He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

The unambiguous verses that the Father words Himself said to the Son, your throne, O God, is forever and ever.

That isn't "unambiguous" nor is it the Father saying that to the Son, is it? The above is an obvious and horrible mistranslation, in a vain attempt to support a man-made doctrine that satanically tries to divide God into different individuals, so that He can allegedly talk to Himself.

Hebrews 1:8-9 is meant to be a DIRECT QUOTE from Psalm 45:6-7, which is a Psalm David wrote about Christ his Lord (Psalm 110:1). It was Christ Who said of and to His Father:

Psalm 45:6 Thy Throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: the sceptre of Thy Kingdom [is] a Right sceptre.

Which is why Christ's Father (Who IS God) said the following to Christ:

Psalm 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Does Father -- Who is THE One True God -- have a God? No. Does Christ have a God? Yes. Father IS His God, as Christ has repeatedly told us, both in the body of Jesus and out of the body of Jesus, when Christ gave His Revelation to John.

Christ, while in the body of Jesus:

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, MY GOD MY GOD, why hast Thou forsaken me? (Eno. 89:20; Psalm 22; Isaiah 52:13 to 54:1; Sura 4:157-8.)

John 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.


And Christ after He ascended into heaven, i.e. while out of the body of Jesus:

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in The Temple of MY GOD, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of MY GOD, and the name of the city of MY GOD, [which is] New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from MY GOD: and (I will write upon him) my NEW name.

And how could God have "fellows", as in fellow angels? You do realize that the TITLE "Christ" means "The One Whom God Anointed" (usually shortened to "The Anointed One") don't you?

And there are two words "God" in the next verse, where the first refers to Jesus and the second refers to the Father. (Heb 1:8-9 and Psa 45:6-7).

No. The two references to "God" in the next verse are very obviously both to Father, to Whom Christ taught all of us to pray, just as Christ Himself does:

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name.

Don't you believe the Father's words as truth or not?

Isn't that a question you should be asking yourself?

Numbers 23:19 God [is] NOT a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do [it]? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

(see also: 1 Samuel 15:29; Job 9:32; Hosea 11:9; John 4:24)

How many times did Jesus refer to himself as "the Son of Man" in the Gospel accounts? OVER 80 TIMES. So the ONLY way someone could pretend that Jesus is God is if they ignore both Father's Words and those that Jesus actually spoke in HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of verses, in a vain attempt to privately interpret one verse which has very obviously been mistranslated.

I believe we have posted the original Hebrew of Psa 45:6 with corresponding Strong Concordance. Can you post the same?

Just because you "believe" that doesn't make it true, nor does it mean you have correctly understood either Ps. 45:6-7 or Heb. 1:1-9. And who wrote "Strong Concordance"? God, or men?

From Jesus words Himself said that "all the Father had are mine," is it not blasphemy if Jesus is not God?

Of course it isn't blasphemy, as Father GAVE everything to Christ, as Christ's INHERITANCE.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth.

John 5:19-20
5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do NOTHING of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that Himself doeth: and He will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Hebrews 1:1-4
1:1 God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [His] Son, whom He (God) hath appointed HEIR of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;
1:3 Who being the brightness of [His] glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by The Word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of His Majesty on high;
1:4 Being MADE so much better than the angels, as he hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they.

God clearly gave power to Christ. God clearly taught Christ everything Christ knows. God clearly doesn't "inherit" anything, as He created everything, including Prince Michael/Christ, God's Eldest/Firstborn Son.

It is, however, blasphemy to falsely claim that "Jesus (the human son of Mary) is God".

Romans 1:25 Who changed the Truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Ok, I bolded and colored blue your statement above.
Let me present to you your honest logic behind that statement;
1. Jesus as "Son of man" as His mother is human Mary. Is He man or not? You've already stated it honestly and logically above.

Agreed. Logically and honestly, Jesus was a human (a man), born of a human mother (the virgin Mary), descended from royal, kingly line of David (see: Matt. 1:1-17 for the lineage of Jesus via Mary). Hence Jesus' designation as "the Son of David" (a direct descendant of king David).

Note: Jesus is not just a name, but is also a TITLE (which means "YHWH Saves", usually shortened to "Saviour"), just as "Christ" is also a TITLE (which means "The One Whom God anointed to be our King", usually shortened to "The Anointed One").

2. Jesus as "Son of God" as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why your honesty, and logical statement I colored blue above cannot be applied to the second question? Why and explain.

God is NOT, and NEVER CAN BE a human, nor the son of a human, nor does God have human sons, as only humans can do (through procreation).

Numbers 23:19 God [is] NOT a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do [it]? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

CHRIST -- the immortal spiritual-Being -- is the firstborn/firstbegotten/first-created Son OF God (Col. 1:12-15; Heb. 1:1-6). It is Christ's Father Who is God (John 4:24).

When Christ (aka "The Word of God") incarnated Jesus (John 1:14), they together became the human+Being we refer to as Jesus+Christ.

Jesus not only was not God, but Jesus wasn't the Son of God either. It is Christ, incarnated inside of Jesus, that IS the Son of God.

This is why Christ, through the mouth of Jesus, told us we MUST be reborn as our spirit, i.e. understand who and what we really are, or we cannot even "see" the Kingdom of Heaven, much less enter it.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The human body of Jesus is now long gone, as Christ shed that body during the ascension. It is Christ the Saviour Who has a seat at the right-hand of God, NOT the human Son of Mary.

This is the logical and honest description of the relationship between Father (God) and His Christ, which no human has ever understood, nor ever will. Hence the reason we need to be reborn as our true, spiritual selves, to see things as they really are.

John 4:23-24
4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.
4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship [Him] with their spirit (Being) and in Truth.

[historia]

The expression "O God" is not a literal translation of the word "God". It is just a way of saying that the translator considers "God" to be in Vocative, so he adds "O" to say that the expression is invoking God, i.e. the translator is choosing to believe the word is in Vocative ... it is the way he thinks about what is written, not what the text actually says.

I understand the point you're trying to make here, but it's odd to say that some translators are "choosing to believe" the word elohim in Psalm 45:6 is in the vocative -- as if this were a matter of faith or something. Rather, we should say that they have concluded, on grammatical and historical grounds, that this is most likely what the author intended.

Indeed, "O God" is in many respects the natural reading here.

First, as I already mentioned in post #17, this seems to be the common ancient reading. We have the targums, Jewish Aramaic paraphrases of the Bible, and other Jewish translations and commentaries on the Psalms, from ancient times up through the Middle Ages, that understand elohim in Psalm 45:6 to be a vocative.

Second, as I also mentioned previously, we have modern Jewish scholars, like Abraham Cohen, who acknowledge that "Thy throne, O God, appears to be the obvious translation" (The Psalms, pg. 141). This is the prima facie reading, even for scholars who question it.

Third, this is how this kind of phrasing is usually translated throughout the Psalms.

Grab your favorite English translation of the Bible -- for arguments sake, let's choose the NWT -- and look at all the places in the Psalms where that translation renders the text as "O God." In each of those cases, also consult the MT and the LXX.

Here are a few examples out of the dozens of such occurrences:

Save me, O God, for the waters threaten my life. (NWT)
הושיעני אלהים כי באו מים עד־נפש
ΣΩΣΟΝ με, ὁ Θεός, ὅτι εἰσήλθοσαν ὕδατα ἕως ψυχῆς μου

Your righteousness, O God, reaches to the heights; You have done great things; O God, who is like you? (NWT)
וצדקתך אלהים עד־מרום אשר־עשית גדלות אלהים מי כמוך
τὴν δυναστείαν σου καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου ὁ Θεός ἕως ὑψίστων ἃ ἐποίησας μεγαλεῖα ὁ Θεός τίς ὅμοιός σοι

Listen to my prayer, O God, And do not ignore my request for mercy. (NWT)
האזינה אלהים תפלתי ואל־תתעלם מתחנתי
ΕΝΩΤΙΣΑΙ ὁ Θεός τὴν προσευχήν μου καὶ μὴ ὑπερίδῃς τὴν δέησίν μου

In all of these cases, the Psalmist simply writes elohim (אלהים). But because his words are clearly being directed to God, it's obvious that this should be understood as a vocative (hence the NWT's rendering, 'O God'). In all of these cases, too, the LXX renders this vocative occurrence of elohim as ho theos (ὁ Θεός).

Psalm 45:6, in the MT and the LXX, looks just like all these other myriad examples we find elsewhere in the Psalms:

כסאך אלהים עולם ועד שבט מישר שבט מלכותך
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ράβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

So, on what grammatical grounds, then, should we treat it differently?

I wouldn't translate "O God" when the text only says "God". Translating "Your throne God forever" is clear enough and it can be interpreted both ways depending on where the reader makes the pause/breathing while reading the whole sentence, after throne or after God.

Again, I appreciate the point you're trying to make here. I'm sympathetic to the idea that, if the source text is somewhat ambiguous, then a good translation should also retain some of that ambiguity. But "Your throne God forever" is not proper English, obviously.

A proper translation of this verse, then, will necessarily require the translator to determine the most likely rendering in English and put that in the main of their text. If they want to acknowledge some ambiguity in the source text, then adding a textual note is the better approach. For my money, the NRSV has that balance correct when it comes to Psalm 45:6.

The Greek article "the" is not equivalent to the modern English interjection "O".

Well, yeah, of course. No one said that it was.

It's just that, in koine Greek, if you wanted to express the vocative "O God" -- maybe because, you know, you were translating from the Psalms where that case appears frequently -- you would almost invariably render that as ho theos.

BDF § 146 notes:

Classical Greek used ὦ before the vocative to express address or invocation along with ὤ to introduce an exclamation.

However:

In conformity with Koine and Semitic usage vocative ὦ is frequently omitted before the vocative in the NT and always in invoking God . . . Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rd person. The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ὁ θεός, ὁ πατήρ etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article.

If, on the other hand, an ancient Greek translator of the Psalms thought kisaka elohim meant something other than "your throne, O God," it's possible, maybe even likely, they would have rendered it differently.

Adding "O" to the text is not translating but interpreting.

That is too simplistic an assessment. All translation necessarily involves some level of interpretation. The anonymous translators of the NWT have done that throughout the Psalms whenever they render the text as "O God," for example. Can you earnestly say they were wrong to do so?

[onewithhim]

The expression "O God" is not a literal translation of the word "God". It is just a way of saying that the translator considers "God" to be in Vocative, so he adds "O" to say that the expression is invoking God, i.e. the translator is choosing to believe the word is in Vocative ... it is the way he thinks about what is written, not what the text actually says.

I understand the point you're trying to make here, but it's odd to say that some translators are "choosing to believe" the word elohim in Psalm 45:6 is in the vocative -- as if this were a matter of faith or something. Rather, we should say that they have concluded, on grammatical and historical grounds, that this is most likely what the author intended.

Indeed, "O God" is in many respects the natural reading here.

First, as I already mentioned in post #17, this seems to be the common ancient reading. We have the targums, Jewish Aramaic paraphrases of the Bible, and other Jewish translations and commentaries on the Psalms, from ancient times up through the Middle Ages, that understand elohim in Psalm 45:6 to be a vocative.

Second, as I also mentioned previously, we have modern Jewish scholars, like Abraham Cohen, who acknowledge that "Thy throne, O God, appears to be the obvious translation" (The Psalms, pg. 141). This is the prima facie reading, even for scholars who question it.

Third, this is how this kind of phrasing is usually translated throughout the Psalms.

Grab your favorite English translation of the Bible -- for arguments sake, let's choose the NWT -- and look at all the places in the Psalms where that translation renders the text as "O God." In each of those cases, also consult the MT and the LXX.

Here are a few examples out of the dozens of such occurrences:

Save me, O God, for the waters threaten my life. (NWT)
הושיעני אלהים כי באו מים עד־נפש
ΣΩΣΟΝ με, ὁ Θεός, ὅτι εἰσήλθοσαν ὕδατα ἕως ψυχῆς μου

Your righteousness, O God, reaches to the heights; You have done great things; O God, who is like you? (NWT)
וצדקתך אלהים עד־מרום אשר־עשית גדלות אלהים מי כמוך
τὴν δυναστείαν σου καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου ὁ Θεός ἕως ὑψίστων ἃ ἐποίησας μεγαλεῖα ὁ Θεός τίς ὅμοιός σοι

Listen to my prayer, O God, And do not ignore my request for mercy. (NWT)
האזינה אלהים תפלתי ואל־תתעלם מתחנתי
ΕΝΩΤΙΣΑΙ ὁ Θεός τὴν προσευχήν μου καὶ μὴ ὑπερίδῃς τὴν δέησίν μου

In all of these cases, the Psalmist simply writes elohim (אלהים). But because his words are clearly being directed to God, it's obvious that this should be understood as a vocative (hence the NWT's rendering, 'O God'). In all of these cases, too, the LXX renders this vocative occurrence of elohim as ho theos (ὁ Θεός).

Psalm 45:6, in the MT and the LXX, looks just like all these other myriad examples we find elsewhere in the Psalms:

כסאך אלהים עולם ועד שבט מישר שבט מלכותך
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ράβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

So, on what grammatical grounds, then, should we treat it differently?

I wouldn't translate "O God" when the text only says "God". Translating "Your throne God forever" is clear enough and it can be interpreted both ways depending on where the reader makes the pause/breathing while reading the whole sentence, after throne or after God.

Again, I appreciate the point you're trying to make here. I'm sympathetic to the idea that, if the source text is somewhat ambiguous, then a good translation should also retain some of that ambiguity. But "Your throne God forever" is not proper English, obviously.

It is not proper English, so how about inserting "is" instead of "O"? It makes the most sense (as we see also the sentiment in verse 9) and should really read, "Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

[Revelations won]

Dear A Freeman,

Please note that I never said Christ was equal with God the Father.

You should observe that In Daniel 7 that "the son of man" (Christ) was brought before "The ancient of days" who then gave him an everlasting kingdom.

My question to you is who is "the ancient of Days" who had the power to give Christ this everlasting kingdom?

It is obvious that Christ received "all that the Father hath", is given an everlasting kingdom.

Is given all power in heaven and earth.

Is given the power to judge all mankind.

Is Emanuel or "God with us".

Has power to give commandments.

Is the "word".

Will sit in the throne of The Most High.

Was worshiped by the Angels of God.

And yet you deny his position in the Godhead.

It appears that you deny the three separate and distinct members of the Godhead i.e. (God the Father , Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost).

It appeares that you are declaring all the above to be the eternal destiny of all mankind. Is this your clear doctrine?