All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Peterlag]

WHY I KEEP TALKING ABOUT JESUS NOT BEING HIS OWN GOD

I keep emphasizing this because it’s a central point many people seem to misunderstand in our discussions about the resurrection and the nature of Jesus.

Ephesians 1:17 & 20 says:
The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father… raised him [raised Jesus] from the dead and set him at His own right hand.
(see also Acts 2:32–33)

Trinitarianism, on the other hand, insists both that Jesus is God and that He raised Himself.

These two ideas stand in direct opposition to one another.

If “the God of Jesus" raised Him, while at the same time Jesus is the God who raised him, this can only mean that Jesus is His own God — a nonsensical idea, and the kind of "reductio ad absurdum" that shows the claim to be untenable.

 

[Capbook]

God is not calling Jesus God. Hebrews 1:8 is a quote from Psalms that says "Thy throne, O 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 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.

In Heb 1:8 the Almighty God the Father had certainly refer the phrase, "but unto the Son said" to Jesus.
Though that phrase absent in Psa 45:6, Classical Jews interpret it as referred to the Christ/Messiah.
In the Old Testament, Jews were the people of God, can we Gentiles, question the interpretation of the people of God before?

 

[Capbook]

Since you are using Wikipedia, saying it is a neutral ground source, then I will also use Wikipedia. Source at the bottom.

The Wikipedia article on Psalm 45 says, "In the 19th century, Franz Delitzsch argued that the poem was written on the occasion of Jehoram of Judah's marriage to Athaliah; John Calvin and Alexander Kirkpatrick both maintained that it referred rather to the marriage of Solomon with an Egyptian princess."

So we have some well-known Trinitarian theologians in agreement that Psalm 45 is about king Solomon because Solomon is the most likely candidate. King Solomon had a thing for foreign (non-Jewish) women and there is no other king that Psalm 45 may be talking about.

So Jews would not have meant to say that king Solomon is Lord God Almighty. Therefore, Psalm 45:6 is not a messianic prophecy nor does it transfer deity to Jesus when it is applied to Jesus. The word "elohim" can mean God or god, a judge, a king, magistrate, etc. It is often applied to regularly humans throughout the Bible, just like Solomon for example.

So a deeper look at Hebrew poetry, context, and words reveals that Hebrews 1:8 is not an argument for the deity of Jesus. Also, as I said, Hebrews 1:9 and Psalm 45:7 eliminate any possibility of your interpretation being correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_45

If the interpretation of Psa 45:6 refers to king Solomon, have they mentioned where is that forever and ever throne in the New Testament? Because Bible lexicon defined "forever" in Hebrew "עלם / עולם ‛ôlâm" as everlasting, perpetual, and etc.
If you believe their interpretation, can you cite a verse where is that throne in the NT?

Psa 45:6 R1Your throneH3678, O GodH430, is foreverH5769 and everH5703; A scepterH7626 of R2uprightnessH4334 is the scepterH7626 of Your kingdomH4438.

H5769
עלם / עולם ‛ôlâm
BDB Definition:
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

 

[101G]

There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

John 14:1 "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me."

101G

 

[Runningman]

If the interpretation of Psa 45:6 refers to king Solomon, have they mentioned where is that forever and ever throne in the New Testament? Because Bible lexicon defined "forever" in Hebrew "עלם / עולם ‛ôlâm" as everlasting, perpetual, and etc.
If you believe their interpretation, can you cite a verse where is that throne in the NT?

Psa 45:6 R1Your throneH3678, O GodH430, is foreverH5769 and everH5703; A scepterH7626 of R2uprightnessH4334 is the scepterH7626 of Your kingdomH4438.

H5769
עלם / עולם ‛ôlâm
BDB Definition:
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

Doesn't need to be in the New Testament. You're splitting hairs because the words aren't published in your preferred area of the Bible. Forever is forever regardless of where it is written. You are making what is called a non-argument just to be contrarian.

 

[Peterlag]

John 14:1 "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me."

101G

Believe also in me does not mean Jesus is God. Or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[Runningman]

Believe also in me does not mean Jesus is God. Or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

Their religious beliefs override common sense, facts, English grammar, reality, etc. That's why so many things they say don't make sense.

 

[Peterlag]

Their religious beliefs override common sense, facts, English grammar, reality, etc. That's why so many things they say don't make sense.

You write well. I post...
There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

And they say I'm wrong because of this verse...
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

That makes no sense. And yes the English language is no longer a tool for communications if we go by what they write. The verse says believe in me. The word "me" does not mean God. It means me.

 

[Runningman]

You write well. I post...
There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

And they say I'm wrong because of this verse...
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

That makes no sense. And yes the English language is no longer a tool for communications if we go by what they write. The verse says believe in me. The word "me" does not mean God. It means me.

Means Jesus saw himself as someone else different than God. So if Jesus said, "You believe in Santa Claus, believe also in me." It should be well understood that Jesus is not in anyway attempting to say he is Santa Claus. Trinitarians will understand this, but they won't understand the Bible when it says "You believe in God, believe also in me." Religious bias induced blindness.

 

[Capbook]

Doesn't need to be in the New Testament. You're splitting hairs because the words aren't published in your preferred area of the Bible. Forever is forever regardless of where it is written. You are making what is called a non-argument just to be contrarian.

The argument is about where to find the forever and ever throne of king Solomon in the New Testament.
Can you cite a verse from any of your preferred Bible?
If none, I believe the interpretation is incorrect.

 

[Peterlag]

The argument is about where to find the forever and ever throne of king Solomon in the New Testament.
Can you cite a verse from any of your preferred Bible?
If none, I believe the interpretation is incorrect.

The huge problem here is the Old Testament is mostly all about Israel and the folks on this site quote it and then want to apply it to the New Testament that is mostly about Christians. It blows my mind that they do not know what is written concerning Israel is for Israel and what is written to Christrians is concerning Christian. The preferred area of the Bible is the Christian Bible. Not the Jewish Bible.

cc: @Capbook

 

[101G]

Believe also in me does not mean Jesus is God. Or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

do you believe in God? yes or no. ....... (Smile) can't wait to hear that answer, just answer YES or NO, anything else is simply a distraction from the TRUTH.... meaning a LIE..... so, a yes or no is required. and 101G will not repeat this, nor engage in any thing else if a yes or no is not rendered.

 

[Runningman]

The argument is about where to find the forever and ever throne of king Solomon in the New Testament.

Wasn't your premise that Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6 mean Jesus is God? I have just provided you several posts with proof that the criteria you're using to deify Jesus also applies to others and thus your interpretation is in error. This is why I mentioned that Solomon also has an eternal throne, but that doesn't mean he's God. There are others called God in the Bible, but they aren't God. There's a context to why someone is called god when they are not actually The God in the Bible. So you haven't shown anything convincing at all why your interpretation works.

Can you cite a verse from any of your preferred Bible?
If none, I believe the interpretation is incorrect.

Yes, Hebrews 1:8 is about Solomon's eternal throne but it is being applied to Jesus, too. The throne of Solomon, David, Jesus are eternal thrones in the Bible.

 

[Peterlag]

The Trinity does not come from Scripture...

It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

 

[Runningman]

The Trinity does not come from Scripture...

It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

They normally say "Begin reading the Bible with John 1:1" and from there they completely mispresent the rest of the Bible on a bad foundation.

It would be like building someone's understanding of God on the following verses only and reinterpreting every verse in the entire bible around them. How warped and confused about God do you think someone would be if someone deliberately misrepresented the context about who God is? That's what happened to the Trinitarians. Bad foundation.

Hebrews 10
31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Revelation 6
15Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. 17For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?”

Matthew 10
28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[Capbook]

The huge problem here is the Old Testament is mostly all about Israel and the folks on this site quote it and then want to apply it to the New Testament that is mostly about Christians. It blows my mind that they do not know what is written concerning Israel is for Israel and what is written to Christrians is concerning Christian. The preferred area of the Bible is the Christian Bible. Not the Jewish Bible.

cc: @Capbook

I believe you misunderstood what forever and ever means. It would mean that OT throne will be read in the New Testament.
If you are not an Arian believer that question is easy.
Just quote Hebrew 1:8.

 

[Capbook]

Wasn't your premise that Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6 mean Jesus is God? I have just provided you several posts with proof that the criteria you're using to deify Jesus also applies to others and thus your interpretation is in error. This is why I mentioned that Solomon also has an eternal throne, but that doesn't mean he's God. There are others called God in the Bible, but they aren't God. There's a context to why someone is called god when they are not actually The God in the Bible. So you haven't shown anything convincing at all why your interpretation works.

I will quote verses from literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages. Just three verses before the text in question the "Mighty One" in Psalms 45:3, as the Son in Isaiah 9:6 "Mighty God." Do that referred to any human?
Do you believe Jesus' words when He said neither had heard the voice of the Father anytime?(John 5:37)
Then whose voice was that that commanded Moses?(Jos 22:9)
Whom was described as the "Mighty One, God?" in Joshua 22:22?
Again, do that refer to human to you?

Psa 45:3 Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Mighty One, In Your splendor and Your majesty!
Joh 5:37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
Jos 22:9 The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh returned home and departed from the sons of Israel at Shiloh which is in the land of Canaan, to go to the land of Gilead, to the land of their possession which they had possessed, according to the command of the LORD through Moses.
Jos 22:22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD, the Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows, and may Israel itself know. If it was in rebellion, or if in an unfaithful act against the LORD do not save us this day!

Yes, Hebrews 1:8 is about Solomon's eternal throne but it is being applied to Jesus, too. The throne of Solomon, David, Jesus are eternal thrones in the Bible.

You can apply those Bible verses above to answer this interpretation.

 

[Peterlag]

I believe you misunderstood what forever and ever means. It would mean that OT throne will be read in the New Testament.
If you are not an Arian believer that question is easy.
Just quote Hebrew 1:8.

If we believe what God said in one administration and carry it into another administration that was on a different principle, we will be taking what is true for one time, and using it to contradict what is also true for another time. When we mix them all together, by jumbling the whole Bible together: Law, Gospel, Grace, Judgment, Glory, Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God, we will be very confused in our understanding of the truth of God’s Word.

What is written directly to the Jews, belongs to and is for the Jews. What is written directly to the Gentiles, belongs to and is for the Gentiles. What is written directly to the Church of God, belongs to and is for the Church of God. What does God mean when He tells us that the visions shown to Isaiah was concerning Judah and Jerusalem? It was not addressed to us or written concerning us, but it was addressed to and concerning Judah and Jerusalem. It would be dishonest for the Church of God to interpret to the Church of God what God said concerns Israel.

 

[101G]

The Trinity does not come from Scripture...

It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

The Agency of Salvation from sin, by human men, does not come from Scripture...

as you said about the trinity, “It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept”. and same thing the Unitarians, as you say about the trinity doctrine is the same faut. ”They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation”. is this not what you Unitarians do also?

now, if you decided to engage. know this, “all the human saviors' in the bible, except the “Christ”, saved from Physical bondage. where as Christ/God in flesh as, as, as, a man save from a none-Physical bondage… called sin.

now if you wish to engage in a conversation concerning The Spiritual Savior of mankind vs a physical savior in the bible, 101G is all in.


101G

 

[Peterlag]

The Agency of Salvation from sin, by human men, does not come from Scripture...

as you said about the trinity, “It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept”. and same thing the Unitarians, as you say about the trinity doctrine is the same faut. ”They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation”. is this not what you Unitarians do also?

now, if you decided to engage. know this, “all the human saviors' in the bible, except the “Christ”, saved from Physical bondage. where as Christ/God in flesh as, as, as, a man save from a none-Physical bondage… called sin.

now if you wish to engage in a conversation concerning The Spiritual Savior of mankind vs a physical savior in the bible, 101G is all in.


101G

There are only about eight verses in the entire New Testament that can be understood to say that Jesus is God, and every one of them can either be translated in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position, or disputed textually, or can be explained from the use of the word “God” in the culture. In contrast, the clear verses where Jesus is said to be a “man” such as when Peter or Paul taught their audiences that Jesus was a man appointed by God are not disputed and in the context there does not seem to be any good reason those men would not have said Jesus was a God-man if in fact that is what he is.