Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
You are misreading my post, my friend.
I said “IF”. I was presenting a scenario. I don’t think God communicated that the Messiah would be God.
No, Im not. I’m questioning one way to translate it.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
I said “IF”. I was presenting a scenario. I don’t think God communicated that the Messiah would be God.
What this phrase means even if there was an "if" you describe Him as, "He was an awful communicator, because nobody understood Him."
I believe you don't read what I've mentioned and even noted again, Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is the original Greek of John 1:18. I'll post it again for your ready reference;
(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) John 1:18 θεον G2316 N-ASM ουδεις G3762A-NSM-N εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτε G4455 ADV μονογενης G3439 A-NSM θεος G2316 N-NSM ο G3588 T-NSM ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM εις G1519PREP τον G3588 T-ASM κολπον G2859 N-ASM του G3588 T-GSM πατρος G3962 N-GSM εκεινος G1565 D-NSM εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S
And you did not address of what scholarship you are referring to, while the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is widely used in academic settings, particularly by universities and seminaries, due to its scholarly accuracy, recent scholarship, and gender-inclusive language. Which renders John 1:18 as Jesus as is the only Son, himself God.
(NRSVAue+) No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who N1 is close to the Father’s heart, N2 who has made him known. R11
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
The “if “ means that what follows is conditional clause. If God had said or done X, then God would have been Y.
I should have said “transcription” instead of “translation”. I made a mistake, my brother.
You’re also making a mistake: we have no originals of any book of the NT, including the gospel of John.
So, the “if” means there is a possibilty that the Father would become an awful communicator to you?
The influential Greek New Testament text edited by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort is "The New Testament in the Original Greek". It is also often referred to as the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament or simply Westcott and Hort.
Westcott and Hort introduced a more rigorous and scientific approach to textual criticism, emphasizing the importance of early, high-quality manuscripts. Its Greek New Testament text is generally considered a reliable and important contribution to textual criticism.
I just don’t know what oldest manuscripts your theology is based to. Oldest manuscripts as for me are closest to the truth with less copyist mistakes.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
If God had communicated a message that nobody understands, and that was essential for men salvation, He would have been an awful communicator… or even worse, a preverse being who does not want to be understood. Revelation would not be revelation, and we such ask ourselves if we should worship such God.
Would you worship such God, Capbook? I would not.
I don’t doubt it is influential, but I also don’t doubt it is a transcription… and perhaps a transcription from a transcription from a transcription.
We have no original manuscripts from any book of the Bible
Do you believe, Capbook, that God can be begotten?
He did make it clear but you refuse to understand.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Not just me. Millions of Jews never understood that the Messiah would be God.
Jesus never ever called his audience to abandons their Jewish monotheism.
MTMattie
Well-known member
@Pancho Frijoles
Quick question.
If Jesus, when he started His ministry on earth sent out the word that "HE" was God (As I believe and see proof in the Bible)
what kind of effect do you think that would have had on those alive at that time and coming to a believing faith?
IOW, do you feel that it would have made all of our lives easier if He just said it along with every miracle he performed from healings, to walking on water to feeling say... the 5000?
Or would it have muddied the plan of the Father when it is so obvious that the Father wants each of His children to come into their believing faith in a very personal way?
When Jesus said he was only sent to the lost sheep, if the word went out that God had come for them... would he have lost many?
And at that point would the gentiles even be mentioned in the same breath as a grafted tree branch?
So many unanswered questions while getting hung up on which came first...and was He or wasn't He.
Quick question.
If Jesus, when he started His ministry on earth sent out the word that "HE" was God (As I believe and see proof in the Bible)
what kind of effect do you think that would have had on those alive at that time and coming to a believing faith?
IOW, do you feel that it would have made all of our lives easier if He just said it along with every miracle he performed from healings, to walking on water to feeling say... the 5000?
Or would it have muddied the plan of the Father when it is so obvious that the Father wants each of His children to come into their believing faith in a very personal way?
When Jesus said he was only sent to the lost sheep, if the word went out that God had come for them... would he have lost many?
And at that point would the gentiles even be mentioned in the same breath as a grafted tree branch?
So many unanswered questions while getting hung up on which came first...and was He or wasn't He.
Are you comfortable making God at fault? While men who don't understand, that have eyes but cannot see, that have ears but cannot hear, whom lack spiritual discernment because the Spirit is not with them? Yes, I will worship the God who make the Bible complete for our salvation.
Jhn 20:30 So then, many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Jhn 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.
Westcott and Hort's textual basis primarily relied on two ancient Greek manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which they considered to represent a "neutral" or "original" text type. The Septuagint can be seen as a "copy of a copy" in the sense that it's a translation derived from the original Hebrew but they believed these manuscripts provided the most accurate reflection of the original New Testament texts. By the way, what Bible translation you based your belief? Yes, I believe Jesus is the only-begotten God, the inspired word of God said so, supported by the oldest manuscripts papyrus 66 and 75.Pancho Frijoles said:
[/QUOTE]
The God who communicated that the Messiah is God, is Christ Himself Who spoke through the mouth of the prophets, indicating that the Messiah who was to come on the Day of the Lord with His saints is Jesus Christ Himself:
YHWH the LORD God.
Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;
The city shall be taken,
The houses rifled,
And the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity,
But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south.
Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
Yes, you shall flee
As you fled from the earthquake
In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:1-5
Thus the LORD (YHWH) my God (Elohim) will come, and all the saints with You.
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, Jude 14
Psa 45:6 speaks about "Your throne O God, is forever and ever" some interpret the "God" there as to refer to a human king. But what about his forever and ever throne? Can we find it in the New Testament? As "forever and ever" defined by Bible lexicon as perpetual and continue to exist. May we know from you brother Pancho where it is in the NT? But According to classical Jewish sources, Psalm 45 refers to the Jewish Messiah. According to Metzudot, a classical Jewish commentary, the king mentioned in verse 2 is the Jewish Messiah. I believe also verse 6.(Emphasis is mine)
The three already exist in the first book and first chapter of the Bible. Trinity is monotheism, one God in three distinct person.
Peterlag
Well-known member
But of the son the father says my throne is yours or yours to use.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I fixed the data on Hebrews 1:8 after you questioned me on who was the king or human king. I now see the verse in light of the following...
Hebrews 1:8
“Your throne is God.” Hebrews 1:8 is an almost exact quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6, which itself was a very good translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews 1:9 is from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:7. The theme of Hebrews 1 centers around the Father’s rule and elevation of the Son over the rest of creation. God spoke through the prophets, and then through His Son, who He appointed heir of all things and who is now seated at God’s right hand as second in command under God.
The God of the Son—anointed him and set him above his companions, such that the Son now sits on God’s right hand. Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalm 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. To see that fully, one must study Psalm 45. Upon examination, Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, so when it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 then that quotation does not support the Trinity either. The Jews read Psalm 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.
The renowned Greek scholar and Trinitarian, A. T. Robertson noted that the Greek word theos (God) could be understood as a vocative, “O God” or as a nominative, as in the phrase “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” He wrote: “Either [translation] makes good sense.” Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalms 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. The Jews read Psalms 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.
Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.
Hebrews 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.
Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Your interpretation is in contrast to your quoted verses at the bottom. As I’ve said the “Your throne is God” interpretation is wrong because “God is not a throne.” And besides you give weight to the Greek Septuagint translating the Hebrew Psa 45:6 (7 in the Tanakh). The “God” in Psa 45:6 understood by Jews that it refers to the Jewish Messiah. Whom we believe is Jesus.
I don’t see the word “my” in Hebrew 1:8.
Can you provide the verse where we can see the “my” but not from paraphrase translation? Because thought for thought translation change the original Bible words that we cannot look upon its definition through Bible lexicons.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I'm still editing this thing down to now this as of Saturday. I'm looking at Psalms 45"6 and I see God and God's throne. Thus, my throne.
Hebrews 1:8
“Your throne is God.” Hebrews 1:8 is an almost exact quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6, which itself was a very good translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews 1:9 is from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:7. The theme of Hebrews 1 centers around the Father’s rule and elevation of the Son over the rest of creation. God spoke through the prophets, and then through His Son, who He appointed heir of all things and who is now seated at God’s right hand as second in command under God.
The God of the Son—anointed him and set him above his companions, such that the Son now sits on God’s right hand. Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalm 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. To see that fully, one must study Psalm 45. Upon examination, Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, so when it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 then that quotation does not support the Trinity either. The Jews read Psalm 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.
Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.
Hebrews 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.
Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
