Jesus is HO THEOS in Hebrews and YHWH in Psalms

It’s not that complicated. What matters is how the gospel writers identified God. In the New Testament when they used Ho Theos without any modification, it always refer to Almighty God. Now if you disagree with this, please post with scriptural support.
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.

Heb 1:8 entails a Greek VOCATIVE form of address, comprised of "nominative + article". It's not grammatically an articular nominative, as it is in nearly all other places in the NT. So it's not comparable with ho theos as used in, e.g. Jn 1:1b. Jn 1:1c (theos without the article) repudiates your suggestion that "ho theos" is a title of the Logos or Jesus.

Moreover Heb 1:8 is not a Greek NT formulation: it's an LXX formulation. So stop being so obtuse: nothing can be deduced from Heb 1:8 to lend support a Trinitarian connotation in the NT.

No, it is not. In the OT Almighty God is referred both as a singularity and union of plurality.
A union of plurality only arises in an agency/corporation context, where God's agents (in a loose sense) but including Word and Spirit are referred to by his name; the name of the power by which they act. It doesn't infer that the title to "Almighty God" is invested in more than one divine power, whose name is YHWH. Such is specifically excluded by the pronoun "I" in "I am YHWH God" in many places.

Question. Is “ The Father” an eternal title?
"Father" only has contextual reference to humanity.
 
Last edited:
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),

Heb 1:8 entails a Greek VOCATIVE form of address, comprised of "nominative + article". It's not grammatically an articular nominative, as it is in nearly all other places in the NT. So it's not comparable with ho theos as used in, e.g. Jn 1:1b. Jn 1:1c (theos without the article) repudiates your suggestion that "ho theos" is a title of the Logos or Jesus.

Moreover Heb 1:8 is not a Greek NT formulation: it's an LXX formulation.
Yes, its not that complicated. Let's use your logic. Language is a complex code written with characters that convey a specified message. In a Shakespearean sonnet the letters are arranged in a precise way to take advantage of a preexistent convention or code that of English vocabulary in order to communicate something. Shakespeare invokes concepts that had long been associated with specified arrangements of sounds and characters among English speaker and writers. The specific arrangement he chooses allows those characters to perform a communication function.
As to Hebrews 1 the author did the same. He arranged his letters in a precise way to take advantage of a preexistent convention or code.
When interpreting scripture “Context rules”. Meaning “that which goes with the text.” When you interpret Scripture it must always be considered in light of the immediate verse, then the surrounding verses, then chapters, the book in which it is found, and the entire word of God.
Within the text, the chapter, the Book of Hebrews, and the NT we find the complex and specified arrangement of the following characters [when not modified] "HO THEOS" always = YHWH.
suggesting some sort of corruption or redaction to the text.
Now its a conspiracy
Jn 1:1c (theos without the article) repudiates your suggestion that "ho theos" is a title of the Logos or Jesus.
Really?
From the OP. Theos absent of the definite article can refer to YHWH, judges, magistrates, rulers etc. Depending on the passage. 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.
A union of plurality only arises in an agency/corporation context, where God's agents (in a loose sense) but including Word and Spirit are referred to by his name; the name of the power by which they act. It doesn't infer that the title to "Almighty God" is invested in more than one divine power, whose name is YHWH. Such is specifically excluded by the pronoun "I" in "I am YHWH God" in many places.
Word and Spirit are God's agents? Could you expound on this, and supply scripture?
"Father" only has contextual reference to humanity.
That was not my question. It's simple yes or no. Is the title "Father" an eternal title?
 
"HO THEOS" always = YHWH.
Of course NOT. Otherwise, even the stomach would be YHWH (Phil 3:19).

Ho Theos only means YHWH where the context allows it. Heb 1:8 is not such a context.

Now its a conspiracy

Really?
From the OP. Theos absent of the definite article can refer to YHWH, judges, magistrates, rulers etc. Depending on the passage. 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.
This is superficial. The article is used when talking specifically about God as a person. The anarthrous form is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God. My favorite is "{anarthrous] God was in Christ, reconciling the world." In all these cases, "God" is subject.

However in Jn 1:1c, the Logos is subject and theos is predicate (even where it comes first). As predicate, anarthrous theos is a descriptor, not a title. Theos as descriptor also occur in Jn 1:18 (monogenes theos) and Jn 10:34-36.

Word and Spirit are God's agents? Could you expound on this, and supply scripture?
Word OF God.
Spirit OF God.

By analogy:
Director of svb.
Salesman of svb.

What does OF convey to you?

That was not my question. It's simple yes or no. Is the title "Father" an eternal title?
Are the "children of the Father" eternal children?

On reflection your real question is rather, "Is the Logos an eternal son?"

Only in Trinitarianism is it so. In the bible only Jesus the human is "Son." There is no mention of the Logos being a Son. Jesus is no longer present with us.
 
Last edited:
What does it mean?

It prophesies a short term future event (human king and his bride) plus a long distance future event ( Jesus and His bride)

LOL, so you believe then that it can be applied to a regular human being as well as to God/human being?
Now you add to the text . There is nothing that states “ above your fellows human brothers). Don’t invent what is not there.

I didn't invent a thing, but rather I know what the Bible says and in Romans 8:29 Paul says this below.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

You even admitted that it was first written for one or more completely human king or kings and therefore who would you say would be their fellows?


Really? You interpret Greek by how the text is used in Hebrew? The New Testament authors used Ho Theos when not modified to refer to Almighty God, YHWH. This is a common thread throughout the New Testament. That is what matters. Rather poor scholarship to interpret new testament scripture by how it relates to the old testament, and totally ignore the overwhelming evidence in the New Testament.

Actually, I don't believe the translation is accurate anyhow but would agree with Westcott on this and he said the follow about it and as I have copied and pasted below.

According to Bible scholar B. F. Westcott, this is likely a Greek to English mistranslation, not a Hebrew to Greek mistranslation. Based on the context of the verse, he believes a better rendering would be: "God is Thy throne" or "Thy throne is God".

Never said he did. Got it.

LOL, that is the conclusion that one must come to however when translated the way you translated it, because in verse 9 it goes on to say "therefore God even your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" and by the way, what is he being anointed as anyhow?

The answer is found in Psalm 2:7 and who other than human beings coming from David's descendants would be chosen to be heirs to the throne?

Therefore the word "fellows" most assuredly refers to his human brethren from David's descendants.
 
Yes, its not that complicated. Let's use your logic. Language is a complex code written with characters that convey a specified message. In a Shakespearean sonnet the letters are arranged in a precise way to take advantage of a preexistent convention or code that of English vocabulary in order to communicate something. Shakespeare invokes concepts that had long been associated with specified arrangements of sounds and characters among English speaker and writers. The specific arrangement he chooses allows those characters to perform a communication function.
As to Hebrews 1 the author did the same. He arranged his letters in a precise way to take advantage of a preexistent convention or code.
When interpreting scripture “Context rules”. Meaning “that which goes with the text.” When you interpret Scripture it must always be considered in light of the immediate verse, then the surrounding verses, then chapters, the book in which it is found, and the entire word of God.
Within the text, the chapter, the Book of Hebrews, and the NT we find the complex and specified arrangement of the following characters [when not modified] "HO THEOS" always = YHWH.

You are right, it is not all that complicated, so then, if you are going to start being honest about it, what message did the language of Jesus convey in John 17:3 when he said the following?

John 17:3 "This is Eternal Life, that they might know you (he was praying to the Father and called him) The Only True God and (then himself as) Jesus Christ whom you had sent".


He also based whether or not we will have Eternal Life on whether or not we know The Father as The Only True God and Jesus Christ as the one he had sent and where does that leave you???????


By the way, these are the strongest words Jesus ever spoke on what we must know and believe to be truly saved and have eternal life from God through him.

Therefore where do trins come off by telling people that they must believe that God is three persons and that Jesus is one of them in order to have eternal life and be saved, where is your scripture to support this idea?




Now its a conspiracy

Really?
From the OP. Theos absent of the definite article can refer to YHWH, judges, magistrates, rulers etc. Depending on the passage. 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.

Word and Spirit are God's agents? Could you expound on this, and supply scripture?

That was not my question. It's simple yes or no. Is the title "Father" an eternal title?
While you want to make a point about the definite article here, why do you not understand that in the structure of the sentence of John 1:1 and because John mentions one called God without the article and who is with another who he calls The God that the absence of the definite article for the Logos as God proves that the Logos is not The God.?

You trins will try to argue that there are many verses where the article is absent with the word God and it doesn't have to be included for it to be referring to The God, however in John 1:1 it most certainly does if John was truly speaking of two persons who are The God.

This is the difference between John 1:1 and those other passages, for if John was wanting to communicated that the Logos was The God with another who was also The God, he would have had to use the article for both because he is speaking of two persons who are both The God and this is why your translation is incorrect also.
 
Of course NOT. Otherwise, even the stomach would be YHWH (Phil 3:19).

Ho Theos only means YHWH where the context allows it. Heb 1:8 is not such a context.


This is superficial. The article is used when talking specifically about God as a person. The anarthrous form is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God. My favorite is "{anarthrous] God was in Christ, reconciling the world." In all these cases, "God" is subject.

However in Jn 1:1c, the Logos is subject and theos is predicate (even where it comes first). As predicate, anarthrous theos is a descriptor, not a title. Theos as descriptor also occur in Jn 1:18 (monogenes theos) and Jn 10:34-36.


Word OF God.
Spirit OF God.

By analogy:
Director of svb.
Salesman of svb.

What does OF convey to you?


Are the "children of the Father" eternal children?

On reflection your real question is rather, "Is the Logos an eternal son?"

Only in Trinitarianism is it so. In the bible only Jesus the human is "Son." There is no mention of the Logos being a Son. Jesus is no longer present with us.
Jesus said He is with us till the end of the world.
 
Of course NOT. Otherwise, even the stomach would be YHWH (Phil 3:19).

Ho Theos only means YHWH where the context allows it. Heb 1:8 is not such a context.


This is superficial. The article is used when talking specifically about God as a person. The anarthrous form is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God. My favorite is "{anarthrous] God was in Christ, reconciling the world." In all these cases, "God" is subject.

However in Jn 1:1c, the Logos is subject and theos is predicate (even where it comes first). As predicate, anarthrous theos is a descriptor, not a title. Theos as descriptor also occur in Jn 1:18 (monogenes theos) and Jn 10:34-36.


Word OF God.
Spirit OF God.

By analogy:
Director of svb.
Salesman of svb.

What does OF convey to you?


Are the "children of the Father" eternal children?

On reflection your real question is rather, "Is the Logos an eternal son?"

Only in Trinitarianism is it so. In the bible only Jesus the human is "Son." There is no mention of the Logos being a Son. Jesus is no longer present with us.
Theos means God.
 
Of course NOT. Otherwise, even the stomach would be YHWH (Phil 3:19).
Now you are being selective. Honesty is the best policy.
Did I write "HO THEOS" always = YHWH
Or did I write "[when not modified] "HO THEOS" always = YHWH."
Phil 3:19 its modified. Similar to 'the god of this world',
Ho Theos only means YHWH where the context allows it. Heb 1:8 is not such a context.
Yes it does, nothing contradicts it.
This is superficial. The article is used when talking specifically about God as a person. The anarthrous form is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God. My favorite is "{anarthrous] God was in Christ, reconciling the world." In all these cases, "God" is subject.
Now you are just making things up.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.
18 No one has seen God at any time
3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God;
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
9:33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”
God is not in action here.

However in Jn 1:1c, the Logos is subject and theos is predicate (even where it comes first). As predicate, anarthrous theos is a descriptor, not a title. Theos as descriptor also occur in Jn 1:18 (monogenes theos) and Jn 10:34-36.
According to Greek scholar E. C. Colwell: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun despite the absence of the article." Predicate nominative = is a noun or pronoun that follows a linking verb and refers to the same person or thing as the subject of the verb.

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.

So I like to be specific.
In John 1:1c theos “singular, anarthrous, predicate, nominative, preceding the verb, lacking a possessive pronoun”.

From my search Luke 20:38 is the only other vs in the NT where Theos is “singular anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb lacking a possessive pronoun”, it is translated as God. Theos in vs 38 is YHWH based on vs 37 the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in vs 37. It was not translated on a rule, but based on the text.


Word OF God.
Spirit OF God.

By analogy:
Director of svb.
Salesman of svb.

What does OF convey to you?
Sorry, still does not make sense. You would have to explain this more thoroughly.
Are the "children of the Father" eternal children?

On reflection your real question is rather, "Is the Logos an eternal son?"

Only in Trinitarianism is it so. In the bible only Jesus the human is "Son." There is no mention of the Logos being a Son. Jesus is no longer present with us.
OK.
What is the minimum number of persons it takes to have a loving relationship?

Jn 17:24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

If the Jesus said the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world, how many individuals does that entail? If Jesus was created how did the Father express His love in eternity, since He was alone?
 
LOL, so you believe then that it can be applied to a regular human being as well as to God/human being?
What would be the purpose of the author of Hebrews by quoting Ps 45?
I didn't invent a thing, but rather I know what the Bible says and in Romans 8:29 Paul says this below.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
You even admitted that it was first written for one or more completely human king or kings and therefore who would you say would be their fellows?
So you would rather interpret Ps 45 by Ro 8:29 and ignore Heb 1:8-9 which is almost word for word quotation. That's proper scholarship.
Actually, I don't believe the translation is accurate anyhow but would agree with Westcott on this and he said the follow about it and as I have copied and pasted below.

According to Bible scholar B. F. Westcott, this is likely a Greek to English mistranslation, not a Hebrew to Greek mistranslation. Based on the context of the verse, he believes a better rendering would be: "God is Thy throne" or "Thy throne is God".\
Trying to keep track here. You say its a mistranslation, someone else claims a conspiracy. How about mmm it correct.
BTW when you quote do the right thing a cite or link to your source.
LOL, that is the conclusion that one must come to however when translated the way you translated it, because in verse 9 it goes on to say "therefore God even your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" and by the way, what is he being anointed as anyhow?
"Your God" speaks of relationship vs hierarchy of being.
The answer is found in Psalm 2:7 and who other than human beings coming from David's descendants would be chosen to be heirs to the throne?
Did you bother to read Hebrews.
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?
Ps 2:7 is prophetic.

Therefore the word "fellows" most assuredly refers to his human brethren from David's descendants.
Now you are really grasping for straws. Why not quote Dr. Seuss next time.
 
You are right, it is not all that complicated, so then, if you are going to start being honest about it, what message did the language of Jesus convey in John 17:3 when he said the following?

John 17:3 "This is Eternal Life, that they might know you (he was praying to the Father and called him) The Only True God and (then himself as) Jesus Christ whom you had sent".


He also based whether or not we will have Eternal Life on whether or not we know The Father as The Only True God and Jesus Christ as the one he had sent and where does that leave you???????


By the way, these are the strongest words Jesus ever spoke on what we must know and believe to be truly saved and have eternal life from God through him.

Therefore where do trins come off by telling people that they must believe that God is three persons and that Jesus is one of them in order to have eternal life and be saved, where is your scripture to support this idea?
How many times are you going to pull out this defeated JW argument?
Jn17:1-6 now you open a can or worms. If the Father is the one true God that would make Jesus a false God in Jn 1:1. Would have been nice to reconcile your argument, instead of making the Lord look psychotic. 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 1 John 5:20 , 21).
While you want to make a point about the definite article here, why do you not understand that in the structure of the sentence of John 1:1 and because John mentions one called God without the article and who is with another who he calls The God that the absence of the definite article for the Logos as God proves that the Logos is not The God.?
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.
This has been pointed out to you many times. For some reason it never seems to soak in.
You trins will try to argue that there are many verses where the article is absent with the word God and it doesn't have to be included for it to be referring to The God, however in John 1:1 it most certainly does if John was truly speaking of two persons who are The God.
Another would of, could of, should of, argument.
This is the difference between John 1:1 and those other passages, for if John was wanting to communicated that the Logos was The God with another who was also The God, he would have had to use the article for both because he is speaking of two persons who are both The God and this is why your translation is incorrect also.
Down the same road again.
In the beginning WAS

John 1:1 nv = verb, imperfect, active, indicative, third person, singular.

verb — A word that describes an action, state of being, or the production of a result.

imperfect — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being that is occurring in the past with no assessment of the action’s completion.

active — The grammatical voice that signifies that the subject is performing the verbal action or is in the state described by the verb.

indicative — The mood in which the action of the verb or the state of being it describes is presented by the writer as real.


third person — In grammar, “person” refers to the feature of verbs or pronouns that helps us distinguish

singular — Refers to one person or thing.
 
Now you are being selective. Honesty is the best policy.
Did I write "HO THEOS" always = YHWH
Or did I write "[when not modified] "HO THEOS" always = YHWH."
Phil 3:19 its modified. Similar to 'the god of this world',

Yes it does, nothing contradicts it.
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.

You are going nowhere with this insane abuse of grammar & languages, except into the realm of cultism. Why not do everyone a favor: just drop the idea that Heb 1:8 supports Jesus as "ho theos"?


Now you are just making things up.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.
18 No one has seen God at any time
3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God;
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
9:33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”
God is not in action here.
I said: "The article is used when talking specifically about God/the Father (ho theos) as a person. You don't see him as a person? That is wrong, because it was Jesus himself whom identified "ho theos" as his own Father. The LXX also identifies "ho theos" as a person.

I said "The anarthrous form of "theos" is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God." What I mean by "incidental" is to be construed widely. i.e. (a) not the main subject of the sentence, (b) reflects God doing something, or qualifying something.

So whenever "God" appears in a qualifying clause, e.g. as in
If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing​
then "God" is frequently anarthrous, and in fact very often throughout the NT. I can't see what point you're making.

As to "theos" as predicate, Jn 1:1c is made more complicated than it really is by things like "Colwell's rule" which do not help (see below). As a direct predicate in Jn 1:1c, "God" cannot be linked to other anarthrous usages, e.g. where God is subject, or used as a qualifier, although I would add this: grammatically it may indicate that the focus "is not on the person of God but on the nature/qualities of God." However even anarthrous theos, where used otherwise than as a predicate, and where contextually appropriate, does generally denote the Father.

So you are introducing a lot of confusion by comparing apples and oranges. You cannot compare "theos" taken from different grammatical contexts to draw "trinitarian" conclusions: such is almost demented (like letter a child playing with matches).

According to Greek scholar E. C. Colwell: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun despite the absence of the article." Predicate nominative = is a noun or pronoun that follows a linking verb and refers to the same person or thing as the subject of the verb.

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.
Wallace argues against a definite in Jn 1:1c on the following basis: "The
vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are
monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which
is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in Jn 1,1c" (Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 268).

In short Wallace says that Colwell's rule has been misunderstood. Wallace also points out that before the article of Colwell most commentators saw θεός as qualitative. That is to say, although the Word is deity, he is not the "ho theos" of Jn 1:1b.

Caragounis (a Greek professor) goes further in "John 1:1" and rubbishes Colwell's rule as formulated problematically. He says:

"Colwell's rule that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb
cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because
of the absence of the article...", is formulated problematically, quite apart
from its misinterpretations, which have introduced even more confusion.
For even if we interpret it in the most benevolent fashion, the rule still
opens the way to treating Jn 1,1c as definite, which, as we have seen, it is
not.
This is the reason why Wallace has to introduce his "sub-set proposition"
and his "convertible proposition". However, his explanation that
the anarthrous Θεός in Jn 1,1c seems to be definite, because it refers to
the same person (τον Θεόν, Jn 1,1b), is far off the mark (though, imperceptively,
here he comes dangerously close to Modal ism). He is, however,
uncertain about this interpretation, because "the vast majority of definite
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic ... or proper
names, none of which is true here". Here we are on the wrong track."

You should read the Caragounis article in full. It will help dispel some of the Trinitarian mythology surrounding Jn 1:1c.


So I like to be specific.
In John 1:1c theos “singular, anarthrous, predicate, nominative, preceding the verb, lacking a possessive pronoun”.

From my search Luke 20:38 is the only other vs in the NT where Theos is “singular anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb lacking a possessive pronoun”, it is translated as God. Theos in vs 38 is YHWH based on vs 37 the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in vs 37. It was not translated on a rule, but based on the text.



Sorry, still does not make sense. You would have to explain this more thoroughly.
Revelation 19:3 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

If Jesus is the "Word of God" per Rev 19:13, then what does it say about his relation to God [ho theos]?

Note Rev 19:13 does NOT say "God the Word." Rev 19:13 is the antithesis of Trinitarianism, because it would have to say "o logos theos" and not "o logos tou theos" if Trinitarianism were to hold.


OK.
What is the minimum number of persons it takes to have a loving relationship?

Jn 17:24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

If the Jesus said the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world, how many individuals does that entail? If Jesus was created how did the Father express His love in eternity, since He was alone?
Did I say that Jesus was created? I am not a Socinian/adoptionist, as "Yahweh will Increase" is. You need to distinguish me from the socinians on this forum. I know it is confusing; but me and Yahweh Will Increase don't agree on anything in actuality. I no longer debate much with socinians, as they are a cult whose only justification for existing is their opposition to High Trinitarianism - which I can put up with, but they don't have the truth otherwise.

So don't count me in with the Socinians. I think that answers your question.
 
Last edited:
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.

You are going nowhere with this insane abuse of grammar & languages, except into the realm of cultism. Why not do everyone a favor: just drop the idea that Heb 1:8 supports Jesus as "ho theos"?



I said: "The article is used when talking specifically about God/the Father (ho theos) as a person. You don't see him as a person? That is wrong, because it was Jesus himself whom identified "ho theos" as his own Father. The LXX also identifies "ho theos" as a person.

I said "The anarthrous form of "theos" is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God." What I mean by "incidental" is to be construed widely. i.e. (a) not the main subject of the sentence, (b) reflects God doing something, or qualifying something.

So whenever "God" appears in a qualifying clause, e.g. as in

then "God" is frequently anarthrous, and in fact very often throughout the NT. I can't see what point you're making.

As to "theos" as predicate, Jn 1:1c is made more complicated than it really is by things like "Colwell's rule" which do not help (see below). As a direct predicate in Jn 1:1c, "God" cannot be linked to other anarthrous usages, e.g. where God is subject, or used as a qualifier, although I would add this: grammatically it may indicate that the focus "is not on the person of God but on the nature/qualities of God." However even anarthrous theos, where used otherwise than as a predicate, and where contextually appropriate, does generally denote the Father.

So you are introducing a lot of confusion by comparing apples and oranges. You cannot compare "theos" taken from different grammatical contexts to draw "trinitarian" conclusions: such is almost demented (like letter a child playing with matches).


Wallace argues against a definite in Jn 1:1c on the following basis: "The
vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are
monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which
is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in Jn 1,1c" (Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 268).

In short Wallace says that Colwell's rule has been misunderstood. Wallace also points out that before the article of Colwell most commentators saw θεός as qualitative. That is to say, although the Word is deity, he is not the "ho theos" of Jn 1:1b.

Caragounis (a Greek professor) goes further in "John 1:1" and rubbishes Colwell's rule as formulated problematically. He says:

"Colwell's rule that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb
cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because
of the absence of the article...", is formulated problematically, quite apart
from its misinterpretations, which have introduced even more confusion.
For even if we interpret it in the most benevolent fashion, the rule still
opens the way to treating Jn 1,1c as definite, which, as we have seen, it is
not.
This is the reason why Wallace has to introduce his "sub-set proposition"
and his "convertible proposition". However, his explanation that
the anarthrous Θεός in Jn 1,1c seems to be definite, because it refers to
the same person (τον Θεόν, Jn 1,1b), is far off the mark (though, imperceptively,
here he comes dangerously close to Modal ism). He is, however,
uncertain about this interpretation, because "the vast majority of definite
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic ... or proper
names, none of which is true here". Here we are on the wrong track."

You should read the Caragounis article in full. It will help dispel some of the Trinitarian mythology surrounding Jn 1:1c.



Revelation 19:3 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

If Jesus is the "Word of God" per Rev 19:13, then what does it say about his relation to God [ho theos]?

Note Rev 19:13 does NOT say "God the Word." Rev 19:13 is the antithesis of Trinitarianism, because it would have to say "o logos theos" and not "o logos tou theos" if Trinitarianism were to hold.



Did I say that Jesus was created? I am not a Socinian/adoptionist, as "Yahweh will Increase" is. You need to distinguish me from the socinians on this forum. I know it is confusing; but me and Yahweh Will Increase don't agree on anything in actuality. I no longer debate much with socinians, as they are a cult whose only justification for existing is their opposition to High Trinitarianism - which I can put up with, but they don't have the truth otherwise.

So don't count me in with the Socinians. I think that answers your question.
I expand on my comment "However even anarthrous theos, where used otherwise than as a predicate, and where contextually appropriate, does generally denote the Father."

What I mean by "does generally denote the Father" is "does generally denote the specific person of the Father where the context permits."

What I mean by "where used otherwise than as a predicate" is "where used otherwise than as an anarthrous predicate." What I mean by this exception is not to exclude the Father by an anarthrous predicate, but rather to connote unity with the Father. In Jn 1:1c, it is unity with the Father (ho theos) that is connoted; but not confusion of persons (i.e. as between the Logos and the Father - ho theos). They remain individuated, and necessarily by reason of Jn 1:1b.

Whenever Jesus is denoted as "[anarthrous] theos" it means that he is in "the bosom of the Father" or "one with the Father." It doesn't mean that Jesus and the Father both go under the "ho theos" title in a Trinitarian sense, although I allow the Logos to be inferred by ho theos wherever the context permits, which is often in the LXX, but seldom in the NT, which sets out a superior terminology and differentiation of persons as contrasted with the LXX.

So in the sentence "God made the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1 LXX), the context allows both Logos and the Father (ho theos)" to be connoted together by the LXX's "ho theos". But I don't infer this connotation in a strict Trinitarian sense, because this context doesn't always allow the connotation: it all depends on the subject of the sentence, and the grammar. Thus where the personal pronoun "I" is used, the reference must be to the person of the Father alone, e.g. Ps 50:7, even where we understand the revelation in the psalm as through the Logos.
 
Last edited:
What would be the purpose of the author of Hebrews by quoting Ps 45?

The whole book of Hebrews was to reveal that Jesus was the complete and final fulfillment of all that was written in the OT as the type and therefore he was the complete and final fulfillment of the promise made to David and his descendants.
So you would rather interpret Ps 45 by Ro 8:29 and ignore Heb 1:8-9 which is almost word for word quotation. That's proper scholarship.

I never said it was and besides this, I also said the anointing spoken of in Hebrews 1:9 was that Jesus would be that final heir of the promise made to David and his descendants (his fellows) to the throne.
Trying to keep track here. You say its a mistranslation, someone else claims a conspiracy. How about mmm it correct.
BTW when you quote do the right thing a cite or link to your source.

It was translated by bias trinitarians and no matter whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
"Your God" speaks of relationship vs hierarchy of being.

Sorry but no it doesn't, "your Father" would have but when the writer said "your God" the very words "your God" proves that he is speaking of Jesus' superior and Jesus himself also said "I am going to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God", so do we have the same God that Jesus has?
Did you bother to read Hebrews.
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?
Ps 2:7 is prophetic.

That doesn't change the fact that in verse 9 Jesus is anointed to be the final fulfillment of the promise of God made to David and his descendants (his fellows).
Now you are really grasping for straws. Why not quote Dr. Seuss next time.
I don't follow any scholars and especially not bias trinitarian scholars, I only included his words to prove that not everyone who has received a formal Bible education accepts what is commonly believed about this and that and the fact that I agree with him on this one point was my only reason for quoting him.
 
How many times are you going to pull out this defeated JW argument?
Jn17:1-6 now you open a can or worms. If the Father is the one true God that would make Jesus a false God in Jn 1:1. Would have been nice to reconcile your argument, instead of making the Lord look psychotic. 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 1 John 5:20 , 21).

First off, it has never been defeated by a trinitarian yet and secondly it isn't an argument exclusive to the JW's either.

The fact is, Jesus was speaking to the Father alone and speaking to the Father alone he said, "that they might know you, The Only True God" and this cuts your foolish argument right up into thousands of worthless little pieces whether you like it or can accept it or not
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.
This has been pointed out to you many times. For some reason it never seems to soak in.
Oh how I relish the day when professed Greek experts like yourself find out that all of that knowledge only aided in making you more of a slave to the lies of Satan than you were before you received it and that day is fast approaching now also.


So then, that would also mean that because the article is not present in John 1:1 when he said "and the Logos was God" it means that it is not definite that the Logos is The God and especially given the fact that he is speaking of two entities in the passage you want to say are both The God.

No other passage in scripture is structured like this and which is why your argument that the definite article is not always necessary doesn't work in John 1:1.
Another would of, could of, should of, argument.

Down the same road again.
In the beginning WAS

John 1:1 nv = verb, imperfect, active, indicative, third person, singular.

verb — A word that describes an action, state of being, or the production of a result.

imperfect — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being that is occurring in the past with no assessment of the action’s completion.

active — The grammatical voice that signifies that the subject is performing the verbal action or is in the state described by the verb.

indicative — The mood in which the action of the verb or the state of being it describes is presented by the writer as real.


third person — In grammar, “person” refers to the feature of verbs or pronouns that helps us distinguish

singular — Refers to one person or thing.
Except I am not and never have been arguing that the Logos existed pros God in the Beginning but only that John was not speaking of the Logos as another literal person of God's being but was only using the philosophies of his day concerning the word to reveal who Jesus was.
 
Last edited:
The whole book of Hebrews was to reveal that Jesus was the complete and final fulfillment of all that was written in the OT as the type and therefore he was the complete and final fulfillment of the promise made to David and his descendants.


I never said it was and besides this, I also said the anointing spoken of in Hebrews 1:9 was that Jesus would be that final heir of the promise made to David and his descendants (his fellows) to the throne.


It was translated by bias trinitarians and no matter whether you want to acknowledge it or not.


Sorry but no it doesn't, "your Father" would have but when the writer said "your God" the very words "your God" proves that he is speaking of Jesus' superior and Jesus himself also said "I am going to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God", so do we have the same God that Jesus has?


That doesn't change the fact that in verse 9 Jesus is anointed to be the final fulfillment of the promise of God made to David and his descendants (his fellows).

I don't follow any scholars and especially not bias trinitarian scholars, I only included his words to prove that not everyone who has received a formal Bible education accepts what is commonly believed about this and that and the fact that I agree with him on this one point was my only reason for quoting him
John prepared the way for Israel's Lord and OUR Lord and God, Jesus Christ. Mark 1:1-3.
 
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.
The subject of the address in Ps 45 is a human being, even a King, but not YHWH. That much is undeniable.
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.
That this "God/King" has a God (Ps 45:7) is also the indisputable context.
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.
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.
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.
.
You are going nowhere with this insane abuse of grammar & languages, except into the realm of cultism. Why not do everyone a favor: just drop the idea that Heb 1:8 supports Jesus as "ho theos"?
What fallacy are you appealing to now?
I said: "The article is used when talking specifically about God/the Father (ho theos) as a person. You don't see him as a person? That is wrong, because it was Jesus himself whom identified "ho theos" as his own Father. The LXX also identifies "ho theos" as a person.
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?
I said "The anarthrous form of "theos" is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God." What I mean by "incidental" is to be construed widely. i.e. (a) not the main subject of the sentence, (b) reflects God doing something, or qualifying something.
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.
So whenever "God" appears in a qualifying clause, e.g. as in

then "God" is frequently anarthrous, and in fact very often throughout the NT. I can't see what point you're making.
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.
Wallace argues against a definite in Jn 1:1c on the following basis: "
Caragounis (a Greek professor) goes further in "John 1:1" and rubbishes Colwell's rule as formulated problematically. He says:
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.
Revelation 19:3 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."
If Jesus is the "Word of God" per Rev 19:13, then what does it say about his relation to God [ho theos]?
"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.
Note Rev 19:13 does NOT say "God the Word." Rev 19:13 is the antithesis of Trinitarianism, because it would have to say "o logos theos" and not "o logos tou theos" if Trinitarianism were to hold.
Red herring, no one argues for God the Word. Why not God the Lamb, God the Christ, Bread the God,
Did I say that Jesus was created? I am not a Socinian/adoptionist, as "Yahweh will Increase" is. You need to distinguish me from the socinians on this forum. I know it is confusing; but me and Yahweh Will Increase don't agree on anything in actuality. I no longer debate much with socinians, as they are a cult whose only justification for existing is their opposition to High Trinitarianism - which I can put up with, but they don't have the truth otherwise.

So don't count me in with the Socinians. I think that answers your question.
So then, who is Jesus?
 
The whole book of Hebrews was to reveal that Jesus was the complete and final fulfillment of all that was written in the OT as the type and therefore he was the complete and final fulfillment of the promise made to David and his descendants.
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.
It was translated by bias trinitarians and no matter whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
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.
Sorry but no it doesn't, "your Father" would have but when the writer said "your God" the very words "your God" proves that he is speaking of Jesus' superior and Jesus himself also said "I am going to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God", so do we have the same God that Jesus has?
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.


That doesn't change the fact that in verse 9 Jesus is anointed to be the final fulfillment of the promise of God made to David and his descendants (his fellows).
Funny the author of Hebrews does not mention that. Is there another resource we do not know about?
I don't follow any scholars and especially not bias trinitarian scholars, I only included his words to prove that not everyone who has received a formal Bible education accepts what is commonly believed about this and that and the fact that I agree with him on this one point was my only reason for quoting him.
Cults are anti- intellectual. "Don't accept the established beliefs. Let me give you special interpretation." Sorry I don't like Kool Aid.
 
First off, it has never been defeated by a trinitarian yet and secondly it isn't an argument exclusive to the JW's either.
They came up with it.
And it's been defeated so many times.
You need new material.
The fact is, Jesus was speaking to the Father alone and speaking to the Father alone he said, "that they might know you, The Only True God" and this cuts your foolish argument right up into thousands of worthless little pieces whether you like it or can accept it or not
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 ).
Oh how I relish the day when professed Greek experts like yourself find out that all of that knowledge only aided in making you more of a slave to the lies of Satan than you were before you received it and that day is fast approaching now also.
Call this the fallacy of appealing to Satan.
So then, that would also mean that because the article is not present in John 1:1 when he said "and the Logos was God" it means that it is not definite that the Logos is The God and especially given the fact that he is speaking of two entities in the passage you want to say are both The God.

No other passage in scripture is structured like this and which is why your argument that the definite article is not always necessary doesn't work in John 1:1.
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.

Except I am not and never have been arguing that the Logos existed pros God in the Beginning but only that John was not speaking of the Logos as another literal person of God's being but was only using the philosophies of his day concerning the word to reveal who Jesus was.
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.
 
Back
Top