Jesus is HO THEOS in Hebrews and YHWH in Psalms

One of the factors that are weighed when determining which is the best explanation of the evidence is.
The best explanation will be less contrived than other explanations. That is, it won't require adopting as many new beliefs that have no independent evidence.
You posted a highly contrived explanation of the evidence.

True to a point. Unit the author of Hebrews pointed out that this is also a messianic prophecy. Short view = it's about a king and his bride [possibly David], on the long view= its about Jesus and His bride the church.

True. But note the psalmist used the same term Elohim for the king and his God. Psalms alone without any mention in Hebrews could be interpreted as Elohym =God, and Elohym = ruler, but its not etched in stone. Why? The Hebrews revered God's name. One has to ask, why would the psalmist use the same word for God as he did for the king? Could have used something else and been specific. Such as king, lord, majesty etc.

The Hebrew text or LXX is irrelevant when it comes to the definite article. What matters is Hebrews 1. Why not argue Hebrews 1 or the NT? Because the NT supports HO THEOS [when not modified} = YHWH. And Hebrews 1 supports Jesus is HO THEOS. If not prove your point from Hebrews 1, and spare the bunny trail.
It's obvious that you are clueless as to languages (you can't distinguish between a form of address and a nominative subject in Greek grammar) so I'll not waste my time any further. My point has been made, and you have rejected it. I stand by it. If you can find a reputable scholar that agrees with you, do it. I will also cite Alford "ὁ θεός is probably vocative: both here and in the Hebrew - I need hardly adduce instances of ὁ with a nom. as a form of the vocative: they will be found in the reff.) Note I'm not saying θεός does not apply to Christ. I am saying "o θεός" does not apply to Christ in the titular sense (e.g. Jn 14:1) which is not controversial.

What fallacy are you appealing to now?

More grasping for straws. Pure nonsense. The common thread has always been= Ho Theos not modified is YHWH. This shows me you are not thinking things through. For if HO THEOS = God/the Father, then Father is an eternal title. Do you want to go there?
What nonsense are you rabbiting on about? When was "Father" ever made the title of God in the OT? If "Father" is eternal, why didn't the angel introduce himself as "I am the Father"? "Father" only has a specific connotation to believers and serves as a statement of faith and acknowledgement of a particular relation between man and God.

Really. That could be any verse. Sorry, when X is the answer to everything its the answer to nothing. Try again.
BTW when someone writes "What I mean" is a good indication that they are making it up.


That's you taking advantage of a coincidence and inventing your own rules. Never came across this. If you can post your support for this.

Why beat a dead horse. Did I not write.
Known as Colwell’s rule, this principle applies to certain uses of the Greek article. Now, I agree that Colwell’s rule does not prove a definite article for “theos”, but it most definitely supports it.
Colwell's "rule" is immaterial. We have better scholarship now.

"Word of God" which is ambiguous. Vs "HO THEOS" which is specific and] [when not modified] always 100% refers to Almighty God. Jesus is also known as , Holy One of God, Lamb of God, Christ of God, Bread of God. Son of God alongside "HO THEOS". Jesus and the Father have a hierarchical relationship, its not a hierarchy of being.
What do you know about the "being" of God" where God is invisible?

Red herring, no one argues for God the Word. Why not God the Lamb, God the Christ, Bread the God,
Really? It's in the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith, 451 AD, which you, as a Trinitarian, are obligated to conform with.

So then, who is Jesus?
The Logos incarnate, but without the glory of the Father (Jn 17:5).
 
It's obvious that you are clueless as to languages (you can't distinguish between a form of address and a nominative subject in Greek grammar) so I'll not waste my time any further. My point has been made, and you have rejected it. I stand by it. If you can find a reputable scholar that agrees with you, do it. I will also cite Alford "ὁ θεός is probably vocative: both here and in the Hebrew - I need hardly adduce instances of ὁ with a nom. as a form of the vocative: they will be found in the reff.) Note I'm not saying θεός does not apply to Christ. I am saying "o θεός" does not apply to Christ in the titular sense (e.g. Jn 14:1) which is not controversial.


What nonsense are you rabbiting on about? When was "Father" ever made the title of God in the OT? If "Father" is eternal, why didn't the angel introduce himself as "I am the Father"? "Father" only has a specific connotation to believers and serves as a statement of faith and acknowledgement of a particular relation between man and God.


Colwell's "rule" is immaterial. We have better scholarship now.


What do you know about the "being" of God" where God is invisible?


Really? It's in the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith, 451 AD, which you, as a Trinitarian, are obligated to conform with.


The Logos incarnate, but without the glory of the Father (Jn 17:5).
Jesus is God incarnate with ALL the glory of God.
 
They came up with it.
And it's been defeated so many times.
You need new material.

Says who, you? Sorry but they couldn't have come up with it being Jesus is the one who stated it way before there were any JW's.
Instead of this temper tantrum address the post.
Your argument might hold water if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and ).

Wow, your false doctrine has so corrupted you that you no longer can think about what you are reading without your bias being attached to it.

Jesus was speaking it to one person alone and it was the Father and he very clearly said 'you, The Only True God" and therefore as clear as the sky on a sunny day, he told us that the single person of the Father is The Only True God period and it doesn't matter one bit how you are trying to rearrange the sentence either, for it means the same exact thing.

Yes it is contrasting God against false gods and so was God with what he said in Isaiah 46:9-10 below also and Jesus himself very clearly agreed with this and said that no one knows the day or hour of the end of the age or his coming, not the angels nor even Jesus but only the Father alone period in Matthew 24:36.

Isaiah 46:9-10

9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour no man knows, not the angels nor the Son but the Father only

Call this the fallacy of appealing to Satan.

Read. Slooowwlyy
Greek 101 when the noun carries the definite article it is definite. When the noun lacks the definite article it can be either definite or indefinite depending on the text.
It should be noted that {THEOS =YHWH} is found in John 1:6,12,13,18, 3:2,21, 9:33. Each rendering of theos is anarthrous [not having the definite article] but it is translated as articular [with the definite article]. Based on the text. Same applies to John 1:1c.

Nope, and if in John 1:1 John was truly revealing that there are two persons who are both The God, then he would have had to use the definite article to reveal this, because of the simple fact that he calls the Logos God who was with another who is The God.

Furthermore, no other passage in the whole of the NT speaks of two one with another where it uses "theos" for both but one "ho theos" for one.

By the way, I am not interested in what someone like you would call Greek 101, for you have proven to bias with it over and over again, so don't try to instruct me with your head knowledge of it, for I am not interested and especially not after you have stated your ridiculous argument about John 17:3.
A philosophy created all in vs 3-5
John the Baptist. bore witness of a philosophy.
John was emphatic that this philosophy was face to face with God 1-2
With” (πρός/pros) does not convey the full meaning, because there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition [links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence] {πρός /pros}, denotes motion towards, or direction, the Word is oriented toward God; is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse,

Forget it, your right its a philosophy. Yea.
This just shows that you are totally ignorant of what John meant when he said "all things were created by him and without him was not created anything that was created" and there is no use arguing with you about it either, for first you need to have your ignorance of John 17:3 expelled before you will even learn what John 1:1 means.

John 17:3 is where we must start with our knowledge of God and his truth and not with John 1:1, for first we must know the Father as The Only True God and Jesus as the Christ whom he sent in order to be saved and have eternal life and only after this, can we ever go on to the deeper things of God and his word.
 
No. If you read the immediate text the author is stating that Jesus is not an angel, but a man 5-7, not an angel but also God 8-9, not an angel but the creator of all 10-12.

Wow, all that head knowledge and you are still ignorant of the truth here.

Who were Jesus' companions and who did he share the nature of dude, was it the angels or the seed of Abraham, read on for heaven sake.

Look up that word "companion or fellows" in the Greek being you claim to be such an expert with it, for it means to share and Jesus didn't share the nature of angels but rather the seed of Abraham and when he was anointed his fellows were the human disciples and not angels.
Again what is the purpose of quoting Ps 45 within the immediate text vs 1:5-14.

Again, the purpose of the whole book of Hebrews was to reveal that Jesus fulfilled all of the types in the OT including the Kings descending from David unto whom God made the promise that only his descendants would be heirs to the throne.
Really?? In the ancient manuscripts it reads HO THEOS, how else would you translate it? But when all else fails, let's introduce a conspiracy. If I believe that I would believe that the disciples stole the body.

You would translate it the same as it is stated in the OT where it came from, it is just that simple
Another old defeated JW argument.
John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Jesus returned to his God and to our God, he returned to his Father and our Father. But who did he return to? Who is Jesus' Father? Who is Jesus' God?

Sorry but once again, it was Jesus who called God his God and ours and not the JW's.


This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation. Being God Jesus has a different relationship with God and the Father than man has. That is why Jesus said ‘my Father and your Father, to my God and your God', and not ‘our Father and our God.

Sorry, but when it is expressed that Yahweh is your God, it isn't a term of a close relationship but with the fact that you are acknowledging God as your superior and in fact your supreme superior.
Funny the author of Hebrews does not mention that. Is there another resource we do not know about?

LOL, and neither does any author of scripture mention that God is a trinity either or that Jesus is a Hypostatic Union, but you suckered up to that with no proof at all, so lets not be hypocritical but instead lets be honest.

The author didn't need to say it, for he again was speaking to Hebrews who knew all about it already.
Cults are anti- intellectual. "Don't accept the established beliefs. Let me give you special interpretation." Sorry I don't like Kool Aid.
And your cult actually worships at the shrine of the human intellect and which is the very reason why you will never understand the truth also, for if you read 1 Corinthians chapters 1-3 it should have by now been made clear to you that the human intellect is not the means by which one will ever know the truth of God.

God has given us two witnesses, the one is the written text of the scriptures or the Holy Bible and the other is the Holy Spirit through which he inspired them to be written to begin with.

In the OT this was called "The Law and the Prophets" for the law was the written text and the prophets spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the true Christian now has the completed written scriptures and also the Holy Spirit and that is really all he needs to know the truth of God by.

If he needs anything more than this, God will guide him to it by his Holy Spirit and it is just that simple also.
 
No. If you read the immediate text the author is stating that Jesus is not an angel, but a man 5-7, not an angel but also God 8-9, not an angel but the creator of all 10-12.
Again what is the purpose of quoting Ps 45 within the immediate text vs 1:5-14.

Really?? In the ancient manuscripts it reads HO THEOS, how else would you translate it? But when all else fails, let's introduce a conspiracy. If I believe that I would believe that the disciples stole the body.

Another old defeated JW argument.
John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Jesus returned to his God and to our God, he returned to his Father and our Father. But who did he return to? Who is Jesus' Father? Who is Jesus' God?

This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation. Being God Jesus has a different relationship with God and the Father than man has. That is why Jesus said ‘my Father and your Father, to my God and your God', and not ‘our Father and our God.



Funny the author of Hebrews does not mention that. Is there another resource we do not know about?

Cults are anti- intellectual. "Don't accept the established beliefs. Let me give you special interpretation." Sorry I don't like Kool Aid.
You need to compare the Greek words used in Hebrews 1:9 with Hebrews 2:14 and just maybe you will begin to get the true picture of what the word "fellows" means and who it refers to and it isn't the angels.
 
Says who, you? Sorry but they couldn't have come up with it being Jesus is the one who stated it way before there were any JW's.


Wow, your false doctrine has so corrupted you that you no longer can think about what you are reading without your bias being attached to it.

Jesus was speaking it to one person alone and it was the Father and he very clearly said 'you, The Only True God" and therefore as clear as the sky on a sunny day, he told us that the single person of the Father is The Only True God period and it doesn't matter one bit how you are trying to rearrange the sentence either, for it means the same exact thing.

Yes it is contrasting God against false gods and so was God with what he said in Isaiah 46:9-10 below also and Jesus himself very clearly agreed with this and said that no one knows the day or hour of the end of the age or his coming, not the angels nor even Jesus but only the Father alone period in Matthew 24:36.

Isaiah 46:9-10

9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;

I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is none like me.

10 I make known the end from the beginning,

from ancient times, what is still to come.

I say, ‘My purpose will stand,

and I will do all that I please.’

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour no man knows, not the angels nor the Son but the Father only



Nope, and if in John 1:1 John was truly revealing that there are two persons who are both The God, then he would have had to use the definite article to reveal this, because of the simple fact that he calls the Logos God who was with another who is The God.

Furthermore, no other passage in the whole of the NT speaks of two one with another where it uses "theos" for both but one "ho theos" for one.

By the way, I am not interested in what someone like you would call Greek 101, for you have proven to bias with it over and over again, so don't try to instruct me with your head knowledge of it, for I am not interested and especially not after you have stated your ridiculous argument about John 17:3.

This just shows that you are totally ignorant of what John meant when he said "all things were created by him and without him was not created anything that was created" and there is no use arguing with you about it either, for first you need to have your ignorance of John 17:3 expelled before you will even learn what John 1:1 means.

John 17:3 is where we must start with our knowledge of God and his truth and not with John 1:1, for first we must know the Father as The Only True God and Jesus as the Christ whom he sent in order to be saved and have eternal life and only after this, can we ever go on to the deeper things of God and his word.
We do NOT start at any particular passage to know God.
Both John 1:1 and 17:3 are equally crucial to salvation and eternal life which we receive by KNOWING The Father and Son.
 
It's obvious that you are clueless as to languages (you can't distinguish between a form of address and a nominative subject in Greek grammar) so I'll not waste my time any further. My point has been made, and you have rejected it. I stand by it. If you can find a reputable scholar that agrees with you, do it. I will also cite Alford "ὁ θεός is probably vocative: both here and in the Hebrew - I need hardly adduce instances of ὁ with a nom. as a form of the vocative: they will be found in the reff.) Note I'm not saying θεός does not apply to Christ. I am saying "o θεός" does not apply to Christ in the titular sense (e.g. Jn 14:1) which is not controversial.

The subject of the address in Ps 45 is a human being, even a King, but not YHWH. That much is undeniable. That this "God/King" has a God (Ps 45:7) is also the indisputable context. That the Hebrew text does NOT have the article in its address to this "God/King" contradicts your supposition that "ho theos" is inferred. The LXX uses the article in a grammatical vocative sense only also contradicts your supposition.

Heb 1:8 involves a direct quotation from the LXX. It's not at all complicated to see why the LXX used ho theos, because the Greek vocative for theos was scarcely known or used when the LXX was written: just one occurrence of Θεὲ in the entire LXX, in a verse whose Greek doesn't accurately reflect the Hebrew word order (2 Sam 7:25), suggesting some sort of corruption or redaction to the text.

Ho Theos in Heb 1:8 only carries the article to force a grammatical vocative. The article in missing in the Hebrew text from which Heb 1:8 is taken, in Ps 45. This shows that the article is only present to force a Greek vocative.
This is grammatically admissible and in a sense reasonable, it should be rejected in favor of the nominative.
In the LXX there a parallelism between Psalm 44:3 and 8b.

3 διὰ τοῦτο εὐλόγησέ σε ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
8· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Θεός σου

In vs 3 o theos cannot be vocative, therefore the parallel 8b should not be vocative but nominative.



Anyhow, o theos or ho theos taking the immediate text into consideration.
The angels are addressed by God, the Son is addressed as God.
Hebrews 1:10-12 the Father ascribes to the Son which is a quotation from
Ps 102:25-27 in which YHWH is praised as creator, immutable, and eternal.
Isa 34:4, 50:9 and 51:6
Jesus is identified as YHWH.

Since we have to split hairs.
Corrected post.
The Hebrew text or LXX is irrelevant when it comes to the definite article. What matters is Hebrews 1. Because the NT supports HO THEOS or O THEOS [when not modified} = YHWH. And Hebrews 1 supports Jesus is YHWH.
 
John 17:3 is where we must start with our knowledge of God and his truth and not with John 1:1, for first we must know the Father as The Only True God and Jesus as the Christ whom he sent in order to be saved and have eternal life and only after this, can we ever go on to the deeper things of God and his word.
You figure if you stack it high you somehow win the debate.
Again to your failed argument.
Your argument might hold water if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9.

Plus you make Jesus a false god in Jn 1:1.
Try dealing with this before you go off on a rant.
 
Again, the purpose of the whole book of Hebrews was to reveal that Jesus fulfilled all of the types in the OT including the Kings descending from David unto whom God made the promise that only his descendants would be heirs to the throne.
Sorry everything you posted was wrong. It's not my job to do your homework, so I will address this topic only.

The epistle to the Hebrews is a 'word of exhortation•
(Heb. 13:22) addressed to a group of Hellenistic Jewish
Christians, probably in Rome, who were facing a crisis of
loyalty during the rising tide of Jewish nationalism before
the revolt of A.D.66. The readers were in danger of losing
their confidence and hope (Heb. 3:6, 14; 6:11-12,19; 10:35),
and of suffering from spiritual malnutrition (6:1-2; 13:9)
and sclerosis (3:7-8, 13; 5:11), and of relapsing into
Judaism, if not drifting into virtual paganism (2:1-3; 3:12;
4:1; 6:4-6; 10:39). The author responds to this pastoral
need first by a doctrinal exposition (1:1-10:39) that
establishes the superiority and finality of Christ and
Christianity1 and then by sustained practical exhortation
(11:1-13:25) that issues a clarion call to the pilgrim's
life of faith and endurance.

Murray J. Harris.

Notice what is missing? What your imagination came up with.

Hint - your post.
 
You need to compare the Greek words used in Hebrews 1:9 with Hebrews 2:14 and just maybe you will begin to get the true picture of what the word "fellows" means and who it refers to and it isn't the angels.
I don't do your homework. If you are capable of constructing a logical and coherent post that explains the above do so. If not seek help.
 
The Hebrew text or LXX is irrelevant when it comes to the definite article. What matters is Hebrews 1. Because the NT supports HO THEOS or O THEOS [when not modified} = YHWH. And Hebrews 1 supports Jesus is YHWH.
No scholarly support: just the incoherent ranting of a child playing with things he does not understand. Your teaching amounts to gnosticism, and is directly repudiated by Ps 110:1, John 14:1, John 20:17, 1 Cor 11:3, and by many other verses.
 
Last edited:
No scholarly support: just the incoherent ranting of a child playing with things he does not understand. Your teaching amounts to gnosticism, and is directly repudiated by Ps 110:1, John 14:1, John 20:17, 1 Cor 11:3, and by many other verses.
Anyhow, o theos or ho theos taking the immediate text into consideration.
The angels are addressed by God, the Son is addressed as God.
Hebrews 1:10-12 the Father ascribes to the Son which is a quotation from
Ps 102:25-27 in which YHWH is praised as creator, immutable, and eternal.
Isa 34:4, 50:9 and 51:6
Jesus is identified as YHWH.
 
Anyhow, o theos or ho theos taking the immediate text into consideration.
The angels are addressed by God, the Son is addressed as God.
Hebrews 1:10-12 the Father ascribes to the Son which is a quotation from
Ps 102:25-27 in which YHWH is praised as creator, immutable, and eternal.
You missed Ps:102:24, the reference is to "My God", my 'El', not to "YHWH." "My God" is capable of being a Messianic reference. In fact these verses seems to have traditionally been taken as messianic. Another thing; Ps 102 is a prayer. People didn't pray to Jesus the man. Hence Ps 102 says nothing of the status of Jesus the man.

Isa 34:4, 50:9 and 51:6
Jesus is identified as YHWH.
Jesus as the Word of God in heaven, and invested with the power of YHWH is to be differentiated from Jesus the man. Nothing in any of these verses equates the man Jesus with being the heavenly power "YHWH."

Jesus himself says "I came from God." If Jesus was YHWH, he would have said, "I am God and I came down to earth."

Your views are gnosticism par excellence - Sabellianism in another form.

Just nonsense, pandering to the Jewish idea of the Messiah as YHWH incarnate. In the same way did the Jews misunderstood the Messiah, as you do also.
 
Last edited:
Sorry everything you posted was wrong. It's not my job to do your homework, so I will address this topic only.

The epistle to the Hebrews is a 'word of exhortation•
(Heb. 13:22) addressed to a group of Hellenistic Jewish
Christians, probably in Rome, who were facing a crisis of
loyalty during the rising tide of Jewish nationalism before
the revolt of A.D.66. The readers were in danger of losing
their confidence and hope (Heb. 3:6, 14; 6:11-12,19; 10:35),
and of suffering from spiritual malnutrition (6:1-2; 13:9)
and sclerosis (3:7-8, 13; 5:11), and of relapsing into
Judaism, if not drifting into virtual paganism (2:1-3; 3:12;
4:1; 6:4-6; 10:39). The author responds to this pastoral
need first by a doctrinal exposition (1:1-10:39) that
establishes the superiority and finality of Christ and
Christianity1 and then by sustained practical exhortation
(11:1-13:25) that issues a clarion call to the pilgrim's
life of faith and endurance.

Murray J. Harris.

Notice what is missing? What your imagination came up with.

Hint - your post.
LOL, and where did this guy get this information?

He got it not from the scriptures themselves but from uninspired sources outside of the scriptures, that is where he got it but in Hebrews chapters 6 and 10 especially, the writer makes it clear that these Jews were in danger of committing apostasy against the truth in Christ and going to the law and its worthless sacrifices for sins.

This is why he says, if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins but rather a fearful looking ahead to the judgment of God.

Notice also, their problem was never about Jesus being God but rather about him being the fulfillment to all of the types given in the OT and especially the only real sacrifice for sins.

Their error therefore was in rejecting Jesus as the fulfillment and promised Messiah and sacrifice for sins spoken of in the OT and of thinking that they could return back to the Law of Moses and be redeemed through it instead.

There is only one sacrifice that removes sin and it isn't any of those sacrifice types of the OT and that is why the writer says, that if they turn from it (Jesus Christ and his death on the cross) and go back to the law of Moses, there is no sacrifice of the law that will save them.
 
Last edited:
I don't do your homework. If you are capable of constructing a logical and coherent post that explains the above do so. If not seek help.
You really mean, is that you don't want to know the truth about it and therefore you are not like the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily to make sure that what they were being told was the truth and all because you think you already know it all and therefore you have no room to learn anything else.

The Greek word in Hebrews on 1:9 translated as "fellows or companions" is the word "metocheous" and it means "those who partake or share in something" and Hebrews 2:14, the writer uses its cousin "meteschen" to speak of Jesus as being a sharer in the nature of human beings and not in the nature of the angels.
 
You figure if you stack it high you somehow win the debate.
Again to your failed argument.
Your argument might hold water if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9.

Plus you make Jesus a false god in Jn 1:1.
Try dealing with this before you go off on a rant.
How ridiculous and suppose then you explain how if your idea is correct, that Jesus' words had any real meaning at all being it would leave it wide open for anyone else to be The Only True God also?

This is why none of the other trins have ever argued this foolishness before, because they at least know better.
 
LOL, and where did this guy get this information?

He got it not from the scriptures themselves but from uninspired sources outside of the scriptures, that is where he got it but in Hebrews chapters 6 and 10 especially, the writer makes it clear that these Jews were in danger of committing apostasy against the truth in Christ and going to the law and its worthless sacrifices for sins.

This is why he says, if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins but rather a fearful looking ahead to the judgment of God.

Notice also, their problem was never about Jesus being God but rather about him being the fulfillment to all of the types given in the OT and especially the only real sacrifice for sins.

Their error therefore was in rejecting Jesus as the fulfillment and promised Messiah and sacrifice for sins spoken of in the OT and of thinking that they could return back to the Law of Moses and be redeemed through it instead.

There is only one sacrifice that removes sin and it isn't any of those sacrifice types of the OT and that is why the writer says, that if they turn from it (Jesus Christ and his death on the cross) and go back to the law of Moses, there is no sacrifice of the law that will save them.
Notice a difference between what I post and what you post. My post has scriptural support. Your post is nothing but your personal opinion. And we all know personal opinions are not universal truths. Try posting something that has some scriptura meat in it.
 
The Greek word in Hebrews on 1:9 translated as "fellows or companions" is the word "metocheous" and it means "those who partake or share in something" and Hebrews 2:14, the writer uses its cousin "meteschen" to speak of Jesus as being a sharer in the nature of human beings and not in the nature of the angels.

What word translates? Simple 101 hermeneutics, you post a word in English and you post a word in Greek. try it again.
 
How ridiculous and suppose then you explain how if your idea is correct, that Jesus' words had any real meaning at all being it would leave it wide open for anyone else to be The Only True God also?

This is why none of the other trins have ever argued this foolishness before, because they at least know better.

That’s not my idea, that’s how Greek grammar works. Maybe you should invest in some Greek 101 resources. You will not look so foolish.
 
Back
Top