What is "a god?"

[placebofactor]

Men have imagined many myths, legends, idols, gods, goddesses, heroes, demons, angels, saints, sun gods, moon gods, the gods of the hills, and the thousands of gods of ancient Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Babylon, Greece, and Rome; if gathered together in one place their images would fill the Smithsonian or the Colosseum in Rome.

There are those on this forum that claim Jesus Christ is not the true God. If this is true, he must be a false god like all other gods mentioned above because there is only one true God. And if Jesus is only “a god” what is he the god of?

My Bible claims the true God or Jehovah as some prefer to call him is perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness and is to be worshipped by his faithful followers. The LORD is both the Creator and ruler of the universe; and in the Old Testament, he is called, “I Am, Elohim, or Jehovah.”

So, if Jesus Christ is only “a god,” he is not worthy of any Christian’s love, honor, or respect.

Some claim we can pay obeisance to Jesus, but we cannot worship him. If we can pay obeisance to Jesus who is only "a god," why would it be wrong to bow a knee to any man who claims to be God, or even Satan who is the prince of the power of the air?

[Difflugia]

Correct, and the Father identifies his Son as Jehovah, Hebrews 1:8-9.

No He doesn't. Hebrews 1:8 is wrongly translated by translators.

Hebrews 1:8 is ambiguous. The likely translation is a vocative address to God, but the NWT translation is possible, too. Though the NWT translation of that verse doesn't make much sense in light of the high Christology in the rest of Hebrews, it's still possible and isn't wrong as such.

I guess they didn't realize that the original phrase, in the Hebrew, was "Your divine throne is everlasting," meaning that the Messiah's power and authority comes from God, and he will reign forever. (See Psalm 45:8,9 in the Tanakh.)

The Hebrew is ambiguous in exactly the same way as the Greek. "O God, Your throne is everlasting," is another grammatically possible translation of that verse and there are clues within the larger context that should make us think that that's the preferred translation.

Now, in verse 9 the Messiah is being directly addressed again, saying that "God--your God-- has chosen to anoint you..." Both "Gods" refer to Jehovah God. How can these couple of verses prove that God called Jesus "God?" They plainly do not.

Since 1:8 is ambiguous, it doesn't "plainly" do anything.

In fact, the Messiah is shown to have a God.

Yes. The Father. However, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are in hypostatic union as Jehovah. It's a mystery.

[onewithhim]

Correct, and the Father identifies his Son as Jehovah, Hebrews 1:8-9.

No He doesn't. Hebrews 1:8 is wrongly translated by translators.

Hebrews 1:8 is ambiguous. The likely translation is a vocative address to God, but the NWT translation is possible, too. Though the NWT translation of that verse doesn't make much sense in light of the high Christology in the rest of Hebrews, it's still possible and isn't wrong as such.

I guess they didn't realize that the original phrase, in the Hebrew, was "Your divine throne is everlasting," meaning that the Messiah's power and authority comes from God, and he will reign forever. (See Psalm 45:8,9 in the Tanakh.)

The Hebrew is ambiguous in exactly the same way as the Greek. "O God, Your throne is everlasting," is another grammatically possible translation of that verse and there are clues within the larger context that should make us think that that's the preferred translation.

Now, in verse 9 the Messiah is being directly addressed again, saying that "God--your God-- has chosen to anoint you..." Both "Gods" refer to Jehovah God. How can these couple of verses prove that God called Jesus "God?" They plainly do not.

Since 1:8 is ambiguous, it doesn't "plainly" do anything.

In fact, the Messiah is shown to have a God.

Yes. The Father. However, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are in hypostatic union as Jehovah. It's a mystery.

No, Jehovah is one Person. Jesus is another Person. They exist separately, with Jehovah being the one true God. His Son was instructed what to do when he came down to the earth. The Father, God, is the head of Jesus Christ, meaning his superior. (I Corinthians 11:3)

If Jesus was God, then he wouldn't need to be instructed about anything. He himself says: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19, KJV)

It's no mystery.

[Difflugia]

No, Jehovah is one Person. Jesus is another Person. They exist separately, with Jehovah being the one true God.

My point is that what you're trying to argue against isn't actually the Doctrine of the Trinity. You're making up something else and then arguing against it. You keep ridiculing the notion that Jesus is the same person as the Father, but orthodoxy doesn't teach that.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is one person, Jesus is a second person, and the Spirit is a third person. Together, they are Jehovah, the one true God.

If Jesus was God, then he wouldn't need to be instructed about anything.

Many consider Philippians 2:7 to be an adequate proof text against your position. That's hardly the only argument against your position, but it's enough that you can't simply make your claim and have it mean anything without support.

He himself says: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19, KJV)

Yes, because the will of the Son is necessarily of one accord with the will of the Father. How could it be otherwise? They're the same God!

It's no mystery.

"The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life."—Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition ¶ 234

[tygger2]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #83]

The Protestant reference, the New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1984, p. 805, Tyndale House Publ., tells us:

"But whereas `mystery' may mean, and in contemporary [modern-day] usage often does mean, a secret for which no answer can be found, this is not the connotation of the term mysterion in classical and biblical Gk. In the NT mysterion signifies a secret which is being, or even has been, revealed, which is also divine in scope [`sacred secret'] .... mysterion is a temporary secret, which once revealed is known and understood - a secret no longer". - Cf. The NIV Study Bible f.n. for Ro. 11:25.

Even many Catholic scholars admit the above truth:

"Mystery.... In a derived sense, the word is synonymous with divine secret.... In scripture it must never be taken in the sense (to which catechism has accustomed us) of revealed truth incomprehensible to the human intelligence (for example, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity)." - New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, p. 339 (NT), Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1970.