The Definition of God

[Delphi]

God is often defined as having various extraordinary characteristics. Infinitely loving, all powerful, omniscient, the creator of the Universe, etc.

How can we know that this is indeed true? How can we verify such grandiose assertions? No greater claims could possibly be made!

Normally, we make definitions based on verifiable evidence and observation. For example, we define a giraffe as being a large four-legged grazing mammal with a long neck, hooves, a mouth, a tongue, teeth, and two eyes. We can rationally define a giraffe this way based on verifiable observation. We define a giraffe by going out and finding a giraffe, then defining it based on its attributes.

Yet somehow, God is defined in the opposite manner. We do not go out and find god and define it based on its attributes. Instead, we apply god's characteristics to him without ever observing god. Definitions seem to fabricated out of imagination. I find this extremely dubious.

It seems to me that we are applying these definitions to the concept of a god. We cannot verify nor falsify these attributes.

What is going on here?

[Capbook]

What an evasion.
Then who is the speaker in that verse?

How am I evading anything??
The writer of Hebrews (most likely Paul) was quoting from Psalm 45:6,7. It seems to be from the sons of Korah. Check it out in a Jewish Bible.

You said yes to this verse construction below per your interpretation. Does it sound good understanding to you?

Would you accept the verse would be, "therefore God the Father, even thy God?

YES. (How am I evading anything?)

So, the Father have a God, to you?

No, it's just Jesus.

Would you accept the verse would be, "therefore God the Father, even thy God?
That statement above that you accept as correct. Is "therefore God the Father" is Jesus to you?

It does not say that! I would accept the verse as "therefore God the Father, even thy God." That shows that Jesus has a God.

God has a God? Can the words colored red below said it?

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.

Yes, Jesus has a God. Therefore he could not be God.

Is the word "God" just mentioned once in that verse?

[John17_3]

How am I evading anything??
The writer of Hebrews (most likely Paul) was quoting from Psalm 45:6,7. It seems to be from the sons of Korah. Check it out in a Jewish Bible.

You said yes to this verse construction below per your interpretation. Does it sound good understanding to you?

Would you accept the verse would be, "therefore God the Father, even thy God?

YES. (How am I evading anything?)

So, the Father have a God, to you?

No, it's just Jesus.

Would you accept the verse would be, "therefore God the Father, even thy God?
That statement above that you accept as correct. Is "therefore God the Father" is Jesus to you?

It does not say that! I would accept the verse as "therefore God the Father, even thy God." That shows that Jesus has a God.

God has a God? Can the words colored red below said it?

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.

Yes, Jesus has a God. Therefore he could not be God.

Is the word "God" just mentioned once in that verse?

What are you trying to say?

The pajamas, even your pajamas.
Are they two pajamas, or one and the same?

The donkey, even your donkey.
Are they two donkeys, or one and the same?

The God, your God.
Are they two Gods, or one and the same?

[onewithhim]

How am I evading anything??
The writer of Hebrews (most likely Paul) was quoting from Psalm 45:6,7. It seems to be from the sons of Korah. Check it out in a Jewish Bible.

You said yes to this verse construction below per your interpretation. Does it sound good understanding to you?

Would you accept the verse would be, "therefore God the Father, even thy God?

YES. (How am I evading anything?)

So, the Father have a God, to you?

No, it's just Jesus.

Would you accept the verse would be, "therefore God the Father, even thy God?
That statement above that you accept as correct. Is "therefore God the Father" is Jesus to you?

It does not say that! I would accept the verse as "therefore God the Father, even thy God." That shows that Jesus has a God.

God has a God? Can the words colored red below said it?

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.

Yes, Jesus has a God. Therefore he could not be God.

Is the word "God" just mentioned once in that verse?

The same God is being referred to.

[Difflugia]

What are you trying to say?

The pajamas, even your pajamas.
Are they two pajamas, or one and the same?

The donkey, even your donkey.
Are they two donkeys, or one and the same?

The God, your God.
Are they two Gods, or one and the same?

Verse 1:9 can be read either way for exactly the same reason that 1:8 can: the first ὁ θεὸς can be read as a vocative address: "Therefore, God, your god has anointed you..."

Since the context of the 1:8 quotation indicates a likely vocative address and 1:10 is unambiguously a vocative address to "Lord," it seems rather likely that 1:9 is intended to be read the same way.

[onewithhim]

What are you trying to say?

The pajamas, even your pajamas.
Are they two pajamas, or one and the same?

The donkey, even your donkey.
Are they two donkeys, or one and the same?

The God, your God.
Are they two Gods, or one and the same?

Verse 1:9 can be read either way for exactly the same reason that 1:8 can: the first ὁ θεὸς can be read as a vocative address: "Therefore, God, your god has anointed you..."

Since the context of the 1:8 quotation indicates a likely vocative address and 1:10 is unambiguously a vocative address to "Lord," it seems rather likely that 1:9 is intended to be read the same way.

I disagree. It is clear that verse 9 is referring to the same God, which is the God of Jesus Christ. That is in harmony with many other passages, one of which is I Corinthians 15:24-28 where Jesus "hands over the kingdom to his God ..."

[Difflugia]

I disagree. It is clear that verse 9 is referring to the same God, which is the God of Jesus Christ.

If that's clear to you, it's not for any grammatical or contextual reasons, but because you're reading your favorite theology back into the text. That's fine, but you and John17_3 have been arguing that there are grammatical reasons for reading 1:8 and 1:9 in some way other than the Father addressing the Son as "God." There just aren't any. The grammar and context both suggest that Jesus is being addressed as "God."

It's possible to read those verses otherwise, but so far, the only case you've made for doing so is because you'd very much like to.

That is in harmony with many other passages,

That's why what you're doing is called harmonization. Since Paul didn't write Hebrews, trying to read Paul's christology back into Hebrews isn't likely to help you understand either author.

[onewithhim]

I disagree. It is clear that verse 9 is referring to the same God, which is the God of Jesus Christ.

If that's clear to you, it's not for any grammatical or contextual reasons, but because you're reading your favorite theology back into the text. That's fine, but you and John17_3 have been arguing that there are grammatical reasons for reading 1:8 and 1:9 in some way other than the Father addressing the Son as "God." There just aren't any. The grammar and context both suggest that Jesus is being addressed as "God."

It's possible to read those verses otherwise, but so far, the only case you've made for doing so is because you'd very much like to.

That is in harmony with many other passages,

That's why what you're doing is called harmonization. Since Paul didn't write Hebrews, trying to read Paul's christology back into Hebrews isn't likely to help you understand either author.

I personally have not said anything about grammatical reasons. I look at the verse and I see clearly what it says. It says that God is Jesus' God. I don't know how you can miss that. It's not because I want to believe that. I believe because I read the passage first.

And how do you know that Paul didn't write Hebrews? It very well could be that he did. And I understand both authors.

[Difflugia]

I personally have not said anything about grammatical reasons.

I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I look at the verse and I see clearly what it says. It says that God is Jesus' God.

And that Jesus' god is also addressing Jesus as God. If Hebrews is to be believed, then both are true.

I don't know how you can miss that.

Exactly.

It's not because I want to believe that. I believe because I read the passage first.

If, as you claimed earlier, your understanding of the text isn't based on its grammatical construction, pretty much all you have left is that you've already decided what it must mean.

And how do you know that Paul didn't write Hebrews?

We know that for the same reasons that we know that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles: the vocabulary, writing style, and theology of those documents are different than what we find in the genuine epistles of Paul. Scholars obviously recognize this:

This recognizes that Hebrews' high-priestly Christology does not appear in Paul, and Hebrews' style differs so markedly from the Pauline epistles that Paul himself could not have written Hebrews.—Craig Koester, The Anchor Yale Bible: Hebrews, p. 44.

but even conservative literalists seem to, as well:

Did Paul write Hebrews? The letter’s vocabulary, style, and theology differ greatly from Paul’s letters. Unlike the author of Hebrews, Paul always identifi ed himself in his writings; in fact, in one of them he offered his name as proof of the letter’s authenticity (see 2 Thess. 3:17, 18). The language of Hebrews is polished, deliberate, and without the outbursts of emotion so characteristic of Paul. Typically Paul used Greek, Hebrew, and other sources in his Old Testament quotations, while the author of Hebrews used only the Greek Septuagint. Hebrews 2:3 seems to say that the author did not hear the word of salvation directly from the Lord, whereas Paul did. If Paul wrote Hebrews, he left none of the usual clues.—The NKJV Study Bible, p. 1943

Considering that The NKJV Study Bible defends Moses as the author of Genesis and Peter as the author of First and Second Peter, it should give one some pause that it doesn't defend this particular tradition.

It very well could be that he did.

Only if "very well" is just a meaningless rhetorical flourish. "Paul could very well have written Hebrews" is in the same class as "leprechauns could very well hide pots of gold."

[John17_3]

What are you trying to say?

The pajamas, even your pajamas.
Are they two pajamas, or one and the same?

The donkey, even your donkey.
Are they two donkeys, or one and the same?

The God, your God.
Are they two Gods, or one and the same?

Verse 1:9 can be read either way for exactly the same reason that 1:8 can: the first ὁ θεὸς can be read as a vocative address: "Therefore, God, your god has anointed you..."

Since the context of the 1:8 quotation indicates a likely vocative address and 1:10 is unambiguously a vocative address to "Lord," it seems rather likely that 1:9 is intended to be read the same way.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Please clarify "either way" and "the same way", by stating the exact words.

[Difflugia]

Verse 1:9 can be read either way for exactly the same reason that 1:8 can: the first ὁ θεὸς can be read as a vocative address: "Therefore, God, your god has anointed you..."

Since the context of the 1:8 quotation indicates a likely vocative address and 1:10 is unambiguously a vocative address to "Lord," it seems rather likely that 1:9 is intended to be read the same way.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Please clarify "either way" and "the same way", by stating the exact words.

Verse 1:9 can be read one of two ways. The first addresses Jesus as God: "Therefore, O God, your god has anointed you." The second refers to God the Father twice: "Therefore, God, your god has anointed you."

Verse 1:10 is unambiguously vocative because the word for Lord has a vocative ending. Reading verse 1:9 "the same way" means reading 1:9 in the first sense above.