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?

[John17_3]

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.

O God, your God has annointed you.
That would be God has a God. Is that true or false?

Therefore, God, your God has anointed you.
That would be that whoever you is, that person has a God. Is that true or false?

In either case, Jesus - the Word, has a God. Is that true or false?

[Difflugia]

O God, your God has annointed you.
That would be God has a God. Is that true or false?

That's true.

Therefore, God, your God has anointed you.
That would be that whoever you is, that person has a God. Is that true or false?

That's true.

In either case, Jesus - the Word, has a God. Is that true or false?

That's true.

The assertion in the comment I originally responded to is, however, not necessarily true and that's why I responded.

[onewithhim]

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."

There is no work anywhere that claims absolutely that Paul did not write Hebrews. There is a lot of conjecture.

"Paul is best known as the "apostle to the nations." But his ministry was not confined to non-Jews. Jesus said to Ananias, 'This man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel'. (Acts 9:15; Gal.2:8,9) The writing of the book was truly in line with Paul's commission to bear the name of Jesus to the sons of Israel. Some doubt Paul's writing of Hebrews because he didn't include his own name. But it is felt by some that he may have deliberately omitted his name in writing to the Hebrew Christians since his name had been made an object of hatred by the Jews there in Judea. Neither is the change of style from his other letters any real objection to Paul's writership. Whether addressing pagans, Jews, or Christians, Paul always showed his ability to 'become all things to people of all sorts,' and here his reasoning is presented to Jews as from a Jew, arguments that they could fully understand and appreciate. (I Cor. 9:22) The internal evidence of the book is all in support of Paul's writership. The writer was in Italy and was associated with Timothy. These facts fit Paul (Heb. 13:23,24). Furthermore, the doctrine is typical of Paul, though his arguments are presented from a Jewish viewpoint, designed to appeal to the strictly Hebrew congregation." (See All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1990; p.243-248.

[Difflugia]

There is no work anywhere that claims absolutely that Paul did not write Hebrews.

Unless you're trying to play word games with "absolutely," you're just wrong.

Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary p. 637

From a stylistic perspective, it is impossible to attribute the letter to Paul; of other New Testament writers, it is closest to Luke’s literary abilities, but the style is not Lukan.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament p. 354

The book does not explicitly claim to be written by Paul; like the New Testament Gospels, it is anonymous. But it came to be included in the canon only after Christians of the third and fourth centuries became convinced that Paul had written it. Modem scholars, however, are unified in recognizing that he did not. The writing style is not Paul's, and the major topics of discussion (e.g., the Old Testament priesthood and the Jewish sacrificial system) are things that Paul scarcely mentions, let alone emphasizes. Moreover, the way this author understands such critical terms as "faith" (11: 1) differs markedly from what you find in the writings of the apostle.

Marie E. Jacobs, Reading Hebrews and James p. 3

“The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.” This, the Authorized Version’s confident superscription for Hebrews, is misleading on all counts: It is almost certainly not written by the apostle Paul nor the product of a “Pauline” school; it is addressed to a Christian congregation rather than to the Jewish nation; and it is probably better classified as a homily or sermon rather than as an epistle.

p. 5

It may well be that the reference to Timothy in 13:23 initially gave rise to the suggestion that Hebrews was written by Paul. There is nothing else in the letter that would lead to such a conclusion. As it stands, Hebrews is anonymous. Although from the personal note appended at the end (13:22-25) and the tone throughout, the original author was clearly well-known to the recipients, nowhere is his name mentioned.

In determining Hebrews’ possible author, even more important than its written style is its content, and this tells unequivocally against the apostle Paul.

G. B. Caird and L. D. Hurst, New Testament Theology p. 12

Hebrews and I Peter, even if they are post-Pauline (which is far from being generally agreed), and even if their authors had some acquaintance with Pauline teaching, are theologically so remote from Paul that they are best regarded as representatives of a Hellenistic Christianity largely independent of the Pauline circle.

Howard Marshall, Exploring the New Testament, Volume 2 p. 257

But authorship by Paul is ruled out by the clear theological differences: for instance, our author’s description of Jesus as high priest, his focus on Jesus’ exaltation rather than his resurrection, his perspective on ‘faith’ and his use of Alexandrian thought-forms.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament p. 257

The evidence against Paul’s writing [Hebrews] is overwhelming. In its style, common expressions, major theological themes, and outlook, [Hebrews] is very different from Paul’s letters.

The Oxford Bible Commentary p. 1236

A reference to 'our brother Timothy' (13:23) may have occasioned the tradition that Paul composed the work. Differences in style and theology between Hebrews and the assuredly genuine epistles of Paul make that attribution most unlikely.

[onewithhim]

There is no work anywhere that claims absolutely that Paul did not write Hebrews.

Unless you're trying to play word games with "absolutely," you're just wrong.

Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary p. 637

From a stylistic perspective, it is impossible to attribute the letter to Paul; of other New Testament writers, it is closest to Luke’s literary abilities, but the style is not Lukan.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament p. 354

The book does not explicitly claim to be written by Paul; like the New Testament Gospels, it is anonymous. But it came to be included in the canon only after Christians of the third and fourth centuries became convinced that Paul had written it. Modem scholars, however, are unified in recognizing that he did not. The writing style is not Paul's, and the major topics of discussion (e.g., the Old Testament priesthood and the Jewish sacrificial system) are things that Paul scarcely mentions, let alone emphasizes. Moreover, the way this author understands such critical terms as "faith" (11: 1) differs markedly from what you find in the writings of the apostle.

Marie E. Jacobs, Reading Hebrews and James p. 3

“The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.” This, the Authorized Version’s confident superscription for Hebrews, is misleading on all counts: It is almost certainly not written by the apostle Paul nor the product of a “Pauline” school; it is addressed to a Christian congregation rather than to the Jewish nation; and it is probably better classified as a homily or sermon rather than as an epistle.

p. 5

It may well be that the reference to Timothy in 13:23 initially gave rise to the suggestion that Hebrews was written by Paul. There is nothing else in the letter that would lead to such a conclusion. As it stands, Hebrews is anonymous. Although from the personal note appended at the end (13:22-25) and the tone throughout, the original author was clearly well-known to the recipients, nowhere is his name mentioned.

In determining Hebrews’ possible author, even more important than its written style is its content, and this tells unequivocally against the apostle Paul.

G. B. Caird and L. D. Hurst, New Testament Theology p. 12

Hebrews and I Peter, even if they are post-Pauline (which is far from being generally agreed), and even if their authors had some acquaintance with Pauline teaching, are theologically so remote from Paul that they are best regarded as representatives of a Hellenistic Christianity largely independent of the Pauline circle.

Howard Marshall, Exploring the New Testament, Volume 2 p. 257

But authorship by Paul is ruled out by the clear theological differences: for instance, our author’s description of Jesus as high priest, his focus on Jesus’ exaltation rather than his resurrection, his perspective on ‘faith’ and his use of Alexandrian thought-forms.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament p. 257

The evidence against Paul’s writing [Hebrews] is overwhelming. In its style, common expressions, major theological themes, and outlook, [Hebrews] is very different from Paul’s letters.

The Oxford Bible Commentary p. 1236

A reference to 'our brother Timothy' (13:23) may have occasioned the tradition that Paul composed the work. Differences in style and theology between Hebrews and the assuredly genuine epistles of Paul make that attribution most unlikely.

I see. But I don't agree with them. I stand by what I wrote in my previous post.

[Capbook]

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?

What do the Father said to the Son in verse 8? Is it not "thy throne O God? Yes or no?
The Father and the Son are one in the state of being God.
Just like you and your son are one in the state of humanity.

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.

[onewithhim]

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?

What do the Father said to the Son in verse 8? Is it not "thy throne O God? Yes or no?

No. It should read, according to the ancient Hebrew text from which Paul was quoting, "Thy throne is God." That means that the Son gets all his power from God.

[John17_3]

O God, your God has annointed you.
That would be God has a God. Is that true or false?

That's true.

Therefore, God, your God has anointed you.
That would be that whoever you is, that person has a God. Is that true or false?

That's true.

In either case, Jesus - the Word, has a God. Is that true or false?

That's true.

The assertion in the comment I originally responded to is, however, not necessarily true and that's why I responded.

There are no assertions in that post. There are only questions.
What assertions do you see?

[Capbook]

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?

What do the Father said to the Son in verse 8? Is it not "thy throne O God? Yes or no?

No. It should read, according to the ancient Hebrew text from which Paul was quoting, "Thy throne is God." That means that the Son gets all his power from God.

There is no word "is" in the original Hebrew text of Psa 45:6.(see below)
Is the original Hebrew text wrong?

Psa 45:6 Thy throne, H3678  O God, H430  is for ever H5769  and ever: H5703  the sceptre H7626  of thy kingdom H4438  is a right H4334  sceptre. H7626

Psa 45:6 כסאך H3678  אלהים H430  עולם H5769  ועד H5703  שׁבט H7626  מישׁר H4334  שׁבט H7626  מלכותך׃ H4438 

[onewithhim]

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?

What do the Father said to the Son in verse 8? Is it not "thy throne O God? Yes or no?

No. It should read, according to the ancient Hebrew text from which Paul was quoting, "Thy throne is God." That means that the Son gets all his power from God.

There is no word "is" in the original Hebrew text of Psa 45:6.(see below)
Is the original Hebrew text wrong?

Psa 45:6 Thy throne, H3678  O God, H430  is for ever H5769  and ever: H5703  the sceptre H7626  of thy kingdom H4438  is a right H4334  sceptre. H7626

Psa 45:6 כסאך H3678  אלהים H430  עולם H5769  ועד H5703  שׁבט H7626  מישׁר H4334  שׁבט H7626  מלכותך׃ H4438 

The original Hebrew text doesn't say what you are saying. I wrote on another thread the following:

The original Psalm that is quoted in Hebrews is a hymn in praise of the king of Israel. God is addressed nowhere in this psalm. Instead, we get a lengthy description of the king's ideal life. He is described as shooting arrows, girded with a sword, perfumed, living in awesome palaces, entertained with lutes, attended by fair princesses, etc. So what does it have to do with Jesus, and why is it quoted as if it were about Jesus? Simply, it is because Jesus is the Messiah, the rightful king of Israel. What is said about the king of Israel can be said equally of the Messiah (who is not God). In fact, the ideal life described in mundane terms is stated to be the reward given to the king because "you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness." The psalm continues, "Therefore, God has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions." The psalm is about what God has done for the person spoken to.

Within the Jewish tradition, Psalm 45 has never been taken to call the king 'God.' The modern translation published by the Jewish Bible Society reads: 'Your divine throne is everlasting.' The Greek translation of the psalm made before the beginning of Christianity, which reads exactly as the author of Hebrews has quoted it, certainly followed this traditional Jewish understanding of the verse, and its translators thought that by using ho theos they were saying 'God is your throne,' not 'Your throne, O God.'" Scholars say that there could be two ways to translate the verse, but which is more probable? As I've tried to say, "God is your throne" is the most probable. The Hebrew Psalm would not call the king "God."