Heb 1:8 - Why did you make it so difficult?

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
οὐσία isn't in the text. Your best answer is to make up a word to add to the text?
Lol, but that’s what you are implying, and what the Trinity Creed demands.

By the way, it is hard to imagine any rational and grammatically proficient person arguing that 1 Timothy 2:5 is saying “there is one God in essence.” Want to retract ? I am giving you an opportunity to save face.,
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Lol, but that’s what you are implying, and what the Trinity Creed demands.
I didn't imply anything. It's not my fault you gave an incorrect answer and then immediately contradicted yourself.
By the way, it is hard to imagine any rational and grammatically proficient person arguing that 1 Timothy 2:5 is saying “there is one God in essence.” Want to retract ?
Why would I retract a statement I never made? You were the one adding that word to the text.
I am giving you an opportunity to save face.,
You are making a fool of yourself.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Nice trickery Gryllus. The problem is that in 1 Tim 2:5 the sentence structure is totally
different than your sentence above:



εἷς γὰρ Θεός stands complete as is, there is nothing implied ( so no need for ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ ). It is simply saying that there is one God, as opposed to two or three Gods. It is not asserting that there is one God “in essence” ( whatever that means). Similarly, the second part of the verse is saying that there is one Mediator, as opposed to two or three. If εἷς γὰρ Θεός has an implied prepositional phrase, an awkward one at that, then why does not εἷς μεσίτης have one also ? Or does it ? 😀

Also, I know you would like to change the subject to this, though you are not doing much better , but I am more concerned with the original issue we were discussing. About how a singular noun , pronoun or verb never denotes multiple persons in the Greek of the GNT.
Oh, I was simply corrrecting your impression that we needed μία as though modifying οὐσία instead of εἷς modifying θεός and showing one way of phrasing it in Greek. It's interesting that the more you wander off the reservation of "things already translated from Greek" the farther south your Greek goes.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I didn't imply anything. It's not my fault you gave an incorrect answer and then immediately contradicted yourself.

Why would I retract a statement I never made? You were the one adding that word to the text.

You are making a fool of yourself.
You said the following:

“How do you know it's not saying that God is "one in substance"

Whether or not you “add” a word into the text it isn’t possible for 1 Tim. 2:5 to be saying that God is one in substance.,You need to understand that.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Oh, I was simply corrrecting your impression that we needed μία as though modifying οὐσία instead of εἷς modifying θεός and showing one way of phrasing it in Greek. It's interesting that the more you wander off the reservation of "things already translated from Greek" the farther south your Greek goes.
If you do not add words into the text, we do. Over and over you betray no natural tendency for it:

μία (οὐσία) γὰρ θεός

Anyhow, you need to stop evading the elephant in the room and deal with your impossible grammatical understanding at John 1:1 and at Mark 12:28, etc. instead of trying to divert attention.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You said the following:

“How do you know it's not saying that God is "one in substance"
Oh. I didn't realize I had made a typo. I meant to say "one in purpose" which is what you had said in your previous post. Sorry for misquoting you.
Whether or not you “add” a word into the text it isn’t possible for 1 Tim. 2:5 to be saying that God is one in substance.,You need to understand that.
Typo aside, why would God be anything other than "one in substance?"
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Oh. I didn't realize I had made a typo. I meant to say "one in purpose" which is what you had said in your previous post. Sorry for misquoting you.

Typo aside, why would God be anything other than "one in substance?"
Not even sure what that would mean. To me “ God is one in substance” sounds like “ God is one in donkey.” It’s 4th century gobbledegook.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Typo aside, why would God be anything other than "one in substance?"
The fad for defining God in terms of substance never arose in the church or in theology until the Council of Nicea under Constantine elected to overthrow the decisions of the Synods of Antioch convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata, which had rejected the use of ὁμοούσιον by Paul of Samosata (deposed, 269 AD), whom had said the Father and Son are ὁμοούσιον. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, ὁμοούσιον was inserted in the Nicene Creed by the personal order of Constantine, a matter that is readily creditable given it's hermetic origins and that Constantine was himself a hermeticist, and that few of the bishops had any attachment to this word.

ὁμοούσιον is something of an addiction, even an idolatry, because it substitutes for theological reality rather than comprehends it; and is consistent with paganism to the extent that it fails to demarcate it from Christianity.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The fad for defining God in terms of substance never arose in the church or in theology until the Council of Nicea under Constantine elected to overthrow the decisions of the Synods of Antioch convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata, which had rejected the use of ὁμοούσιον by Paul of Samosata (deposed, 269 AD), whom had said the Father and Son are ὁμοούσιον. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, ὁμοούσιον was inserted in the Nicene Creed by the personal order of Constantine, a matter that is readily creditable given it's hermetic origins and that Constantine was himself a hermeticist, and that few of the bishops had any attachment to this word.

ὁμοούσιον is something of an addiction, even an idolatry, because it substitutes for theological reality rather than comprehends it; and is consistent with paganism to the extent that it fails to demarcate it from Christianity.
"John Milton" claims to never have even read the Creeds, yet he manages to somehow magically understand and align himself with pretty developed musings concerning the "Trinity doctrine," and even with words (like "substance" to go with "Orthodoxy's" biblically contradictory definition of οὐσία) which gained their novel definitions from 4th century creeds. He is one of the most dishonest posters I have met at Carm. in all my years.
 

Rivers

Member
I believe "thy throne is God" is both meaningless and blasphemous, unless addressed to God himself. The biblical doctrine is that every king has his own throne, as does God have his own throne. This rule is inviolable.

I agree in that "your throne is God" is unlikely. God himself is not a throne.

The throne belongs to God (Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2).
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I agree in that "your throne is God" is unlikely. God himself is not a throne.

The throne belongs to God (Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2).

Take it from a fellow Trinitarian then, B. F. Westcott:

“The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (‘thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...’) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (‘God is Thy throne,’ or ‘Thy throne is God...’), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (‘Therefore God, even Thy God...’) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: ‘God is thy throne’ (or, ‘Thy throne is God’), that is, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”

- The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

Or this one, Dr. A. T. Robertson :

“It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [‘your throne, O God’] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.”

- p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

Cheers,
 

cjab

Well-known member
Take it from a fellow Trinitarian then, B. F. Westcott:



- The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

Or this one, Dr. A. T. Robertson :



- p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

Cheers,
Take it from a fellow Trinitarian then, B. F. Westcott:

It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: ‘God is thy throne’ (or, ‘Thy throne is God’), that is, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”

- The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.
It's a tautological to say that elohim cannot be addressed to a mere king. But it could be applicable to an annointed prophet-king or immediate representative of God, such as a messiah or son of God cf. Psalm 82:1,6, John 10:35. David is accorded the honorific plural in the Hebrew (אֲדֹנֵ֥ינוּ - our Lord) in 1 Kings 4:3.

In the NIV, there is a footnote to Psalm 82:6 saying "Here the king is addressed as God’s representative."

Barnes Notes to the Bible reviews the commentators and thinks it impossible that the Psalm is addressed to any known king and in any event, certainly not King David, as there was no marriage with a foreign princess that would correspond; and no occasion on which the “daughter of “Tyre” was present with a gift, Ps 45:12". So he concludes it had application to "The Messiah" alone, in the vein of a later Isaiah 5 or later prophecy. Yet there were other "messiahs" besides Christ, one such being Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1). At least two commentators Augusti & DeWette think it was originally sung at the nuptials of a Persian king.

So I don't think that it is strictly necessary to translate [elohim] as o θεος in Ps 45:6 when it could have been translated as o κύριος, especially as by common consent it refers to a or the messiah.
 

Rivers

Member
Take it from a fellow Trinitarian then, B. F. Westcott:



- The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

Or this one, Dr. A. T. Robertson :



- p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

Cheers,

I don't "take it" from Westcott and Robertson because "God is your throne" makes no sense and isn't consistent with the rest of the book of Hebrews (or anything else in scripture).

The writer of Hebrews attributed "the throne" to "God" (Hebrews 1:4; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2). Jesus is seated at "the right hand of the Majesty On High." This means that he is sharing God's own throne and not sitting on God himself as if He is some kind of throne.

Likewise, the Hebrew king in Psalms 45:6-7 would have been "sitting on the throne of the Lord" (cf. 2 Chronicles 9:8).

A better way to interpret the quotation in Hebrews 1:8 would be something like "your's [is] God's throne" which would be consistent with the rest of the book.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I don't "take it" from Westcott and Robertson because "God is your throne" makes no sense and isn't consistent with the rest of the book of Hebrews (or anything else in scripture).

The writer of Hebrews attributed "the throne" to "God" (Hebrews 1:4; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2). Jesus is seated at "the right hand of the Majesty On High." This means that he is sharing God's own throne and not sitting on God himself as if He is some kind of throne.

Likewise, the Hebrew king in Psalms 45:6-7 would have been "sitting on the throne of the Lord" (cf. 2 Chronicles 9:8).

A better way to interpret the quotation in Hebrews 1:8 would be something like "your's [is] God's throne" which would be consistent with the rest of the book.
Why not be consistent and say "God is my rock" makes no sense as well ?

יְהוָה סַֽלְעִי וּמְצוּדָתִי וּמְפַלְטִי אֵלִי צוּרִי אֶֽחֱסֶה־בּוֹ מָֽגִנִּי וְקֶֽרֶן־יִשְׁעִי מִשְׂגַּבִּֽי׃

κύριος στερέωμά μου καὶ καταφυγή μου καὶ ῥύστης μου ὁ θεός μου βοηθός μου καὶ ἐλπιῶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν ὑπερασπιστής μου καὶ κέρας σωτηρίας μου ἀντιλήμπτωρ μου

Psalm 18:2
 

Rivers

Member
Why not be consistent and say "God is my rock" makes no sense as well ?



Psalm 18:2

"God is my Rock" is a different kind of figure of speech involving one individual. It makes perfectly good sense in that context.

I'm referring explicitly to the how the language in Hebrews 1:8 is used.
 

Rivers

Member
It's the same kind of language.

It isn't the same kind of language. Look closely ...

Psalm 18:2 ... "the Lord (KURIOS) is the rock (STEREWMA) of me (MOU)

Hebrews 1:8 ... "the throne (O QRONOS) of you (SOU) the God (O QEOS) is forever (EIS TON AIWNA)

The writer in Hebrews 1:8 is attributing the throne to God himself. He is not referring to God as the throne.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It isn't the same kind of language. Look closely ...

Psalm 18:2 ... "the Lord (KURIOS) is the rock (STEREWMA) of me (MOU)

Hebrews 1:8 ... "the throne (O QRONOS) of you (SOU) the God (O QEOS)

Nonsense. both are S-PN constructions. The language is the same --

Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς and κύριος στερέωμά μου
 
Top