Towerwatchman
Well-known member
What can be more modifying than Jesus having a God?
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever… therefore God, your God, has anointed you”
Now let’s take a look at who is Jesus’ God who anointed him.
“The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, because YHWH has anointed me”
So now that we have irrefutably confirmed that YHWH is Jesus’ God who anointed him we know for a fact that “God” is not used of Jesus as it is used of YHWH who, once again, does not and cannot have a God
Simple, the article being present or not has no bearing on whether it refers to YHWH. The fact is that θεος (with or without the article) refers to YHWH over 98% of the time in the NT.
When theos does not carry the definite article it could be translated as "God/YHWH" depending on the text. John 1:6,12,13 and 18 theos does not carry the definite article but is translated as God/YHWH based on the text.
When theos carries the definite article it always refers to God/YHWH with the exception of heavy modification identifying someone else.
The modification is a description of the noun clarifying who the noun is. Nothing you posted above qualifies as a modifier. You are re-defining the grammatical definition of modifier.
Note,
Acts 14:11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!”
Theos carries the definite article but based on the text [theos is plural] we can conclude its not theos/YHWH.
2 Cor. 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
Theos carries the definite article 'of this age' modifies 'ho theos' and clarifies 'ho thoes' is referring to Satan.
Red herring.Personification also applies to abstract qualities like we see in Prov. 8 where God’s wisdom is personified.
Re post.
Personification assets human characteristics onto an inanimate object to better describe it. Is the HS now considered an inanimate object if it is the spirit of God?
Read again.God’s spirit.
Jn 14:26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you,
God exist as a Spirit. How does a spirit send His spirit. That would be the Father sending the Father. Your answer makes no sense unless God who is a spirit has another spirit to send.
You just argued for two Gods.Refer back to Heb. 1:8-9 where ό θεος refers to two different individuals, Jesus who has a God and YHWH who can’t have a God and is also the God of Jesus.
Irrelevant. We are discussing YHWH who is described in multiple passages as plurality and singularity.So then Elohim must also best describe Dagon, the god of the Philistines. He must also have been a plurality and singularity.
Jesus is called God in several verses, but let's stick to Hebrews. You are arguing a minor point. You seem to insist that "therefore God your God" somehow proves Jesus is not God. How does "Your God" prove that Jesus is not God when He is identified twice as God with the use of 'ho theos.'?He was called God once, in Heb. 1:8 and the very next verse proves he is not YHWH.
Your = belonging to or associated with any person in general.
Jesus Himself said He has a God. But notice how He identifies Him as His Father. = relational.
Jn 20:17 "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended. to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. '"
Jesus is both Son of God, and God. Note ‘Son’ establishes position in the hierarchy of the Trinity, not an inferior being when compared to the Father. The Father is addressing the Son as ‘The God’ twice because Jesus is God.
They never claimed to be inspired or have to be inspired. What makes their input valuable is that they are are either disciples of the apostles or a disciple of a disciple. They are what we have that is closest to the Apostles.The so called early church fathers were 1. not inspired by God so what they wrote is not proof of anything and 2. The so called ECF did not believe in the trinity as it was later formulated in the 4th-8th century, they were mostly subordinationists. In fact here is what Tertullian said:
Tertullian live approx 150-220AD
Note the following ECF and what they wrote about Jesus being God.
Ignatius (105 AD): "Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God."
ibid: "I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ."
Aristides (125 AD): "The Christians trace the beginning of their religion to Jesus the Messiah. He is called the Son of the Most High God. It is said that God came down from heaven. He assumed flesh and clothed Himself with it from a Hebrew virgin."
Diognetus (c.125-200 AD): "God did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, or ruler.... Rather He sent the very Creator and Fashioner of all things - by whom He made the heavens.... As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so God sent Him. He sent Him as God."
Second Clement (c.150 AD): Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God - as the Judge of the living and the dead."
Justin Martyr (c.160 AD): "The Word...He is Divine."
ibid: "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the First-Begotten Word of God, is even God."
ibid: "For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel, and Man."
ibid: "He deserves to be worshipped as God and as Christ."
ibid: "David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the Father's will. He made Him known, being Christ, as God, strong and to be worshipped."
ibid: "The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless, He is God, in that He is the First-Begotten of all creatures."
ibid: "If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the Only, Unbegottten, Unuttterable God."
Melito (c.170 AD): "God was put to death, the Kiing of Israel slain."
Athenagoras (c.175 AD): "There is the one God and the Logos proceeding from Him, the Son. We understand that the Son is inseparable from Him."
Irenaeus (c.180 AD): "For He fulfills the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Savior of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things that have been formed, the Only-Begotten of the Father."
ibid: "I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam are, absolutely and as to everything, called God, or named Lord. But Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word.... He is the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God."
ibid: "Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem.... God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us.
ibid: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indcates this."
ibid: "Christ Himself, therfore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers."
ibid: "Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has first passed into man?"
ibid: "It is plain that He was Himself the Word of God, who was made the son of man. He received from the Father the power of remission of sins. He was man, and He was God. This was so that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us."
Note what was being taught in the early church.
What you quoted does not say that. It says they were startled because they left the worlds pantheon of gods to the one only True God, and now the Trinity is being taught. It does not say that "they" after careful consideration and study concluded the Trinity to be false.-The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God.
So clearly the majority of believers were not even close to being trinitarian in the 2nd and 3rd century.