JESUS IS NOT GOD

[onewithhim]

I would very much like to get opinions on this subject. I'll provide several verses from the King James Version of the Bible, and I ask you to give me feed-back.


Jesus' words:

1) "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." (John 5:19)

2) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

3) "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42)

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

5) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say....Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50)

6) To his Father in prayer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

7) "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

To John in the Revelation:
8) "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..." (Revelation 3:12)



Do these quotations show that Jesus was NOT God?

Do YOU believe that he claimed to be God?

[Capbook]

HOW SHOULD HEBREWS 1v8 BE TRANSLATED ?

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.

source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=RSVCE

As can be seen above, the verses can be rendered "God is thy throne". The Greek for Hebrews 1:8 literally reads as follows

Toward [but] the SON the throne of you the GOD into the age of the age

Source: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Inte ... 63in-S-if0


A CHALLENGE TO TRANSLATE

According to expert Greek scholars, the original Greek construction of Heb. 1:8 is somewhat ambiguous and can legitimately be rendered in various ways.

• It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative ["your throne, O God"] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God" Either makes good sense." - Dr. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 339
  
  "Both translations ["Your throne is God" and "Your throne, O God"] are possible, so none of the translations we are comparing can be rejected as inaccurate" - Dr. Jason Beduhn in his book Truth in Translation,

Although the Greek allows for various renditions, we have a clue as to the most likely understanding by looking at Psalm 45 verse 7.

PSALMS 45: A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING HEBREWS 1:8

• Hebrews 1:8 is a direct qoute from Psalm 45.
  
  • The Jerusalem Bible renders Psalm 45:6a as: "Your throne, God, shall last for ever and ever." which can be understood as meaning "Your throne (which is ) God, shall last for ever and ever" or "your throne, O god (see USCCB footnote below) , lasts forever"

  
  [*] The footnotes to the NAB were authorized by the American Council of Bishops
  https://bible.usccb.org/bible/psalms/45?7#23045007-1

  Code: Select all

  THE NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE  (2nd edition of this translation)
   
  Your throne [u]is from God[/u], for ever and ever - Psalms 45:7

So, Psalm 45 is speaking about the King (and by extension the promised Jewish Messiah) as a representative of the Almighty and we can hardly think the Hebrews understood the Messiah or the King to literally be Almighty God YHWH [

CONCLUSION The Hebrew and Greek of Hebrews 1:8 can indeed be rendered "thy throne is from God" or "Thy throne (God) lasts forever". Based on Psalms 45:7 it seems reasonable to conclude that either rendition, both of which are grammatically sound, reflects the writer's implied intention as being that the One spoken of is supported and appointed by God rather than is Almighty God himself.

JW




For further reading on the grammatical construction of Hebrews 1:8 see LINK below
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... eb-18.html

New Jerusalem Bible
https://www.catholic.org/bible/books_bible.php

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

Barne's do not {SNIP: don't care}

I dont see anythjng in your post that addresses the specific points made.

Your conclusion as "thy throne is from God" isn't that adding the original Greek writings?

That it is necessary to alter or to add anything to what is there said in explanation of the passage. As it clearly proves that Christ is Divine.

Yes he is divine but not God Almighty. "Divine" means "of, from, or like God or a god; more than humanly excellent, gifted, or beautiful." (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary, 1998)

And have you not gleaned yet from all of the discussion that Greek translation is different from English? We have to add certain words to round out the meaning. It's like if in the Greek it is said, "Rover is dog." It has no article, so we know that Rover is not the only dog. Now we have to make it understandable in English, so we say, "Rover is a dog." We are not adding to the meaning. We are simply following the rules of translation from Greek to English.

"In Hebrews 1:8 we have two nouns in the nominative form: 'throne' and 'God.' The verb 'is' might go between these two nouns, as it does in dozens of cases of saying 'x' is 'y' in the New Testament. If that is so, then the sentence reads: 'Your throne is God, forever and ever.' The NRSV and the TEV translators also recognize this as a possible translation of this verse, and include it in a footnote in their respective translations." (Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 98.)

"Rover is a dog" or "Rover is the dog" adding anything to the originals leads to different understanding.
Why add? Even NRSV and TEV you have mentioned does not say "thy throne is from God".

Heb 1:8
8 But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
NRSV

Heb 1:8
8 About the Son, however, God said:
"Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever!
You rule over your people with justice.
TEV

If Rover was THE dog, he would be one of a kind. The article in front of it tells us if that is the case. There is no Greek article there, so translators to English must follow the rules to translate Greek into English. We don't say "Rover is dog." We say "Rover is A dog." That is understood by a Greek reader.

I think that the TEV and the NRSV have the concession that "God is thy throne" in their margins. It is a viable translation. In fact, the James Moffatt Translation renders Hebrews 1:8 as:
"He says of the Son, God is thy throne for ever and ever." The American Standard Version in a margin says: "Or, Thy throne is God." You see, there are versions that will say that "God is your throne" is a satisfactory translation.

Why come to man's words construction? The original Greek says, see the Greek "throne" comes first than the Greek word "God". It can never be "God is thy throne". So the rendering of KJV is correct and not the other translations.

I have shown you that "God is thy throne" is an acceptable version to other translations. Yes, "throne" comes first and may not be "God is thy throne." But it can be translated as "Thy throne is God." Wouldn't that be acceptable according to your reasoning that "throne" comes first?

That still is not acceptable, the "ho" in between throne and God (colored blue below), defined by lexicon as "the, this, that, one, he, she, it," and your "is" is not one of them.


NT:3588 (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom):

KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc..
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary, and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Heb 1:8 But G1161  unto G4314  the G3588  Son G5207  he saith, Thy G4675  throne, G2362  O God, G2316  is for ever and ever: G1519 G165 G165  a sceptre G4464  of righteousness G2118  is the G3588  sceptre G4464  of thy G4675  kingdom. G932 

Heb 1:8 προς G4314 PREP  δε G1161 CONJ  τον G3588 T-ASM  υιον G5207 N-ASM  ο G3588 T-NSM  θρονος G2362 N-NSM  σου G4771 P-2GS  ο G3588 T-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  αιωνα G165 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  αιωνος G165 N-GSM  ραβδος G4464 N-NSF  ευθυτητος G2118 N-GSF  η G3588 T-NSF  ραβδος G4464 N-NSF  της G3588 T-GSF  βασιλειας G932 N-GSF  σου G4771 P-2GS 

Heb 1:8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ Θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος· ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

[Difflugia]

Just out of curiosity, why are you quoting from the Peshitta?

I do not often find a translation on github, that makes the distinction between the lord and the LORD.

Got it. If you didn't know, though, the text of the Peshitta is already a translation into another language. That's not necessarily a problem in a lot of cases, but it is if, like here, the debate is about the proper translation of the Greek text.

The Wikipedia article you linked deals with the letter O which it says is in Ancient Greek ὦ (ô, interjection). ô is not the same as ὁ.
The former is "O", which is used in Matthew 15:28, and the latter is "the", which is used in Hebrews 1:8.

So, you are referring to word usages that do not apply to the scriptures where ho, hé, to are used.
You will need to provide the reference that says ὁ was used to mean "Oh" or "O".

We were talking about two different things. In the English translations, "O" is used to indicate a vocative because that's the English "vocative particle," even though it's usually considered archaic. It appears in the English Old Testament, which is translated from Hebrew. Shakespeare used it in plays composed in English. I thought you were asking about the etymology of the English "O," which it turns out is ὦ via Latin.

I do not see this in Matthew 11:26
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/11-26.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/11-26.htm
It still translates as "Yes, the father...".

An attempt to use "Oh", or "O" in these text would seem to be a mistake on the part of the translators.
A reference would be required to make it valid.

You misunderstood. The reference I gave you is that depending on context, nominative with an article can indicate direct address. Whether the "O" is used in English or not, ὁ Θεός translates as either "the God" or as directly addressing someone, calling them "God." Hebrews 1:8 can support either, with the latter being much more likely based on overall context.

I hope this is much clearer for you to understand.
Otherwise, I am sorry i could not help.

Right back at you.

Thanks. Do you have an online link, rather than a download?

No. Older journal articles are often put online as PDF scans, as is the case here.

Isn't this a translation, though? How do you think it would make a difference to the translations found here, and what makes it more authoritative?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. That's an academic in an academic journal offering a well-sourced opinion on how that verse should be read.

P.S.
In Hebrews 1:9, the rendering is not "O God", but "the God".

Probably not.

Also, Paul

Paul didn't write Hebrews.

quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, which reads, "God, your throne is".

Probably not. I discussed the quotation in Hebrews of Psalm 45 from the Septuagint in this comment.

[Difflugia]

I have posted the scholarly views of Jason BeDuhn concerning Hebrews 1:8 and they make sense to me. I guess no one here has read my posts.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I've read your posts and read his book.

If you want an understandable and concise viewpoint on Hebrews 1:8 here is what BeDuhn says:

BeDuhn's analysis is either sloppy or dishonest for two very important reasons:

"ho theos is more likely to mean 'God,' as it does hundreds of times throughout the New Testament, than 'O God,' a meaning it has in only three other places in the New Testament...."

This is either sloppy or intentionally misleading.

First, it's strictly speaking, not true. There are more than three uses of ὁ Θεός in a vocative sense in the New Testament, but most of them aren't rendered as "O God." Mark 15:34, for example, uses ὁ θεός to mean "O God" rather than "God." The reason it doesn't look that way, though, is because it includes "of me," ὁ θεός μου. Instead of rendering it "O God of me," it's put into correct English: "my God." This happens again in John 20:28. We see something similar in Revelation 4:11, "our God." Also in Revelation, we see several verses (11:17 is the first), referring to κύριε ὁ θεὸς, which means "O Lord God." That one's interesting because κύριε is in the proper vocative case, but ὁ θεὸς is nominative with the definite article. What I think happened is BeDuhn did a text search for "O God" and missed all of the other clear uses of ὁ θεὸς as a vocative. Otherwise, he's playing dishonest word games.

Second, though he doesn't tell us which three verses he found, one of those must be Hebrews 10:7, by the same author and using a similar construction. If he's going to make a probabilistic argument, we're not comparing with just three times in the New Testament, but the same construction being used by the same author to mean the same thing.

[Revelations won]

Dear onewithhim,

So far on this topic we have about 180 pages of “opinions”. Mostly based on deductive reasoning.

1. From what I see on this topic and responses on other topics you have responded to by your reasoning deny the Divine nature of Jesus Christ who is the “Messiah” or the “Holy One of Israel”.

2. You view Christ as a mere mortal and not as the literal “Son of God his Father”.

3. You appear to deny that Christ has atoned for the sins of all mankind on condition of their repentance.

4. You appear to claim that a mere mortal being has the power of the resurrection for all mankind.

5. You claim that a mere mortal can receive ”all that the Father hath and have all power, all Judgement, has an everlasting kingdom, can sit in his Father’s throne, etc. and yet as “the Son of God the Father”, Has not the Divine power of a God as God the Son.

I would ask you to give your clear position on the above 5 points listed on my post.

[onewithhim]

HOW SHOULD HEBREWS 1v8 BE TRANSLATED ?




source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=RSVCE

As can be seen above, the verses can be rendered "God is thy throne". The Greek for Hebrews 1:8 literally reads as follows




Source: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Inte ... 63in-S-if0


A CHALLENGE TO TRANSLATE

According to expert Greek scholars, the original Greek construction of Heb. 1:8 is somewhat ambiguous and can legitimately be rendered in various ways.



Although the Greek allows for various renditions, we have a clue as to the most likely understanding by looking at Psalm 45 verse 7.

PSALMS 45: A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING HEBREWS 1:8

• Hebrews 1:8 is a direct qoute from Psalm 45.
  
  • The Jerusalem Bible renders Psalm 45:6a as: "Your throne, God, shall last for ever and ever." which can be understood as meaning "Your throne (which is ) God, shall last for ever and ever" or "your throne, O god (see USCCB footnote below) , lasts forever"

  Code: Select all

  THE NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE  (2nd edition of this translation)
   
  Your throne [u]is from God[/u], for ever and ever - Psalms 45:7

So, Psalm 45 is speaking about the King (and by extension the promised Jewish Messiah) as a representative of the Almighty and we can hardly think the Hebrews understood the Messiah or the King to literally be Almighty God YHWH [






JW




For further reading on the grammatical construction of Hebrews 1:8 see LINK below
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... eb-18.html

New Jerusalem Bible
https://www.catholic.org/bible/books_bible.php

Barne's do not {SNIP: don't care}

I dont see anythjng in your post that addresses the specific points made.

Your conclusion as "thy throne is from God" isn't that adding the original Greek writings?

That it is necessary to alter or to add anything to what is there said in explanation of the passage. As it clearly proves that Christ is Divine.

Yes he is divine but not God Almighty. "Divine" means "of, from, or like God or a god; more than humanly excellent, gifted, or beautiful." (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary, 1998)

And have you not gleaned yet from all of the discussion that Greek translation is different from English? We have to add certain words to round out the meaning. It's like if in the Greek it is said, "Rover is dog." It has no article, so we know that Rover is not the only dog. Now we have to make it understandable in English, so we say, "Rover is a dog." We are not adding to the meaning. We are simply following the rules of translation from Greek to English.

"In Hebrews 1:8 we have two nouns in the nominative form: 'throne' and 'God.' The verb 'is' might go between these two nouns, as it does in dozens of cases of saying 'x' is 'y' in the New Testament. If that is so, then the sentence reads: 'Your throne is God, forever and ever.' The NRSV and the TEV translators also recognize this as a possible translation of this verse, and include it in a footnote in their respective translations." (Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 98.)

"Rover is a dog" or "Rover is the dog" adding anything to the originals leads to different understanding.
Why add? Even NRSV and TEV you have mentioned does not say "thy throne is from God".

Heb 1:8
8 But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
NRSV

Heb 1:8
8 About the Son, however, God said:
"Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever!
You rule over your people with justice.
TEV

If Rover was THE dog, he would be one of a kind. The article in front of it tells us if that is the case. There is no Greek article there, so translators to English must follow the rules to translate Greek into English. We don't say "Rover is dog." We say "Rover is A dog." That is understood by a Greek reader.

I think that the TEV and the NRSV have the concession that "God is thy throne" in their margins. It is a viable translation. In fact, the James Moffatt Translation renders Hebrews 1:8 as:
"He says of the Son, God is thy throne for ever and ever." The American Standard Version in a margin says: "Or, Thy throne is God." You see, there are versions that will say that "God is your throne" is a satisfactory translation.

Why come to man's words construction? The original Greek says, see the Greek "throne" comes first than the Greek word "God". It can never be "God is thy throne". So the rendering of KJV is correct and not the other translations.

I have shown you that "God is thy throne" is an acceptable version to other translations. Yes, "throne" comes first and may not be "God is thy throne." But it can be translated as "Thy throne is God." Wouldn't that be acceptable according to your reasoning that "throne" comes first?

That still is not acceptable, the "ho" in between throne and God (colored blue below), defined by lexicon as "the, this, that, one, he, she, it," and your "is" is not one of them.

It is not my "is." Did you read my posts on this subject? (Posts #1766 and 1781.) It is important just where the "is" goes.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1795]

Would someone be so kind as to respond to the points in post #1?

[Capbook]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1795]

Would someone be so kind as to respond to the points in post #1?

Your point #4, Pharisees will argue your reasoning then.

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1795]

Would someone be so kind as to respond to the points in post #1?

Your point #4, Pharisees will argue your reasoning then.

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

Why honor the reasoning of the Pharisees? They were wrong if they considered Jesus had blasphemed. And anyway, they really knew that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not actually God. They said, when he was being crucified, "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am God's Son'" (Matthew 27: 43). So to say that he claimed to be God is not true. They were just giving him a hard time. They knew he was from God and not God, but they wanted to (falsely) blame him of blasphemy to try and get rid of him.

[Capbook]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1795]

Would someone be so kind as to respond to the points in post #1?

Your point #4, Pharisees will argue your reasoning then.

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

Why honor the reasoning of the Pharisees? They were wrong if they considered Jesus had blasphemed. And anyway, they really knew that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not actually God. They said, when he was being crucified, "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am God's Son'" (Matthew 27: 43). So to say that he claimed to be God is not true. They were just giving him a hard time. They knew he was from God and not God, but they wanted to (falsely) blame him of blasphemy to try and get rid of him.

You are just under-estimating the Pharisees, they are Doctors of Law. They understand what Jesus was doing.
And they better understand what they were saying, than us interpreting otherwise.

Acts 5:34
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
KJV

Luke 5:17
17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
KJV

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1795]

Would someone be so kind as to respond to the points in post #1?

Your point #4, Pharisees will argue your reasoning then.

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

Why honor the reasoning of the Pharisees? They were wrong if they considered Jesus had blasphemed. And anyway, they really knew that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not actually God. They said, when he was being crucified, "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am God's Son'" (Matthew 27: 43). So to say that he claimed to be God is not true. They were just giving him a hard time. They knew he was from God and not God, but they wanted to (falsely) blame him of blasphemy to try and get rid of him.

You are just under-estimating the Pharisees, they are Doctors of Law. They understand what Jesus was doing.
And they better understand what they were saying, than us interpreting otherwise.

Acts 5:34
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
KJV

Luke 5:17
17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
KJV

Then it doesn't bother you that they counselled together to kill him? It doesn't bother you that the "trial" he was subjected to was illegal according to their own rules? Have you read Matthew the 23rd chapter? Doesn't any of this wake you up to the evil craftiness of the Pharisees?