The Trinity

[williamjordan]

Hebrews 1:8 NASB20 - But regarding the Son [He says,] "YOUR THRONE, GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE SCEPTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Need I remind you of what you said,

"Either God or the Son. There is no other option."

The point I'm driving at, there really is no "option" at all. The only way you get to this "option" is by reading "the Father" into the text. How in the world do you get the idea that there is an "either or" option?

 

[Mem]

What do you mean?

And no, it does not say that you are God to the glory of God the Father.

Also, Jesus is the Son of YHVH or YHWH. He is not YHVH or YHWH. This means, He is not LORD but He is Lord. Because LORD is a reference to God's name, the tetragrammaton.

If we look at each component of the name YHVH, we see yod, heh, vav, heh and, reverting the letters to the pictographs from which they are derived from, we can see Jesus, the hand with the nail, or tent peg, with the heh(s) indicative of the breath (of life).

Hebrews 1:8 NASB20 - But regarding the Son [He says,] "YOUR THRONE, GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE SCEPTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

you are reading this "But regarding the Son [The Son says,]..." but the correct reading is [The Father says]

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

Need I remind you of what you said,



The point I'm driving at, there really is no "option" at all. The only way you get to this "option" is by reading "the Father" into the text. How in the world do you get the idea that there is an "either or" option?

Either God is speaking about the Son speaking regarding God or God is speaking about the Son being God.

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

If we look at each component of the name YHVH, we see yod, heh, vav, heh and, reverting the letters to the pictographs from which they are derived from, we can see Jesus, the hand with the nail, or tent peg, with the heh(s) indicative of the breath (of life).

You are incorrect. The ancient paleo has YHWH. It is modern Biblical Hebrew that has YHVH.

you are reading this "But regarding the Son [The Son says,]..." but the correct reading is [The Father says]

No, I am not.

 

[Mem]

You are incorrect. The ancient paleo has YHWH. It is modern Biblical Hebrew that has YHVH.

How does that change the significance of the original pictograph of the letter? It doesn't.

No, I am not.

So, if the Father refers to the Son as God, you will say it is of a lesser degree.
You think that Father is patronizing the Son?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I disagree with you. You said based upon my own salvation. I have nothing to that.

But I wanted to ask you, how many Aramaic translations there are.

lol, no, i said, you can bank your soul on...it's just an expression that means nothing. and true, none of us have power of Salvation.

but remember when considering the Greek as being the Authentic Translation.

especially, when you read the Factual Writing from Papias.

he said, they tried, each man did his best.

is that, the good enough [someone tried] when basing a foundation for a Doctrine upon, or personal belief?


there is one Aramaic Translation, that came from one of the 70 Disciples Jesus had and sent them out in groups of two. that is the foundation for the Verses I quoted you, from, the Aramaic to English Language Bible.

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

How does that change the significance of the original pictograph of the letter? It doesn't.

Sure it does.

So, if the Father refers to the Son as God, you will say it is of a lesser degree.

I do not say Jesus is a lesser degree, only that Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I.". That is all.

You think that Father is patronizing the Son?

I don't know what you mean so no.

 

[williamjordan]

Either God is speaking about the Son speaking regarding God or God is speaking about the Son being God.

There is no "either or." It is God speaking of the Son throughout the entire discourse. Why would the Son be citing Ps. 45 of God the Father, when in the Psalm itself it is God speaking to Israel's king?

The discourse pulls from two different themes: Kingship and Lordship.

Heb. 1:5a contains a citation of Ps. 2:7, which is about the coronation of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:5b contains a citation from 2 Sam. 7:14, of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:6 alludes to Ps. 89:27, of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:8-9 cites Ps. 45, of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:13 cites Ps. 110, of Israel's king.

On top of that, your first proposition becomes quite problematic given Heb. 1:9 and it's allusion to the very same Psalm that is being cited in Heb. 1:8,

You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

lol, no, i said, you can bank your soul on...it's just an expression that means nothing. and true, none of us have power of Salvation.

but remember when considering the Greek as being the Authentic Translation.

especially, when you read the Factual Writing from Papias.

he said, they tried, each man did his best.

is that, the good enough [someone tried] when basing a foundation for a Doctrine upon, or personal belief?


there is one Aramaic Translation, that came from one of the 70 Disciples Jesus had and sent them out in groups of two. that is the foundation for the Verses I quoted you, from, the Aramaic to English Language Bible.

That doesn't answer the question. But to give you the benefit of the doubt on something, is English not your first language?

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

There is no "either or." It is God speaking of the Son throughout the entire discourse. Why would the Son be citing Ps. 45 of God the Father, when in the Psalm itself it is God speaking to Israel's king?

The discourse pulls from two different themes: Kingship and Lordship.

Heb. 1:5a contains a citation of Ps. 2:7, which is about the coronation of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:5b contains a citation from 2 Sam. 7:14, of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:6 alludes to Ps. 89:27, of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:8-9 cites Ps. 45, of Israel's king.
Heb. 1:13 cites Ps. 110, of Israel's king.

On top of that, your first proposition becomes quite problematic given Heb. 1:9 and it's allusion to the very same Psalm that is being cited in Heb. 1:8,

It says He but it is in italics and I still believe that it is God speaking.

 

[williamjordan]

It says He but it is in italics and I still believe that it is God speaking.

How does that properly address what was stated in Post #348?

 

[Mem]

I don't know what you mean so no.

Patronizing the Son is what the rich young ruler did to warrant the response from Jesus, "why do you call me good?"

I do not say Jesus is a lesser degree, only that Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I.". That is all.

Jesus used the word 'megas' (vast) for great here, where John 1:30 used the word "emprosthen" (higher rank) for the same English word.

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

How does that properly address what was stated in Post #348?

It is because you said there is no either or.

 

[williamjordan]

It is because you said there is no either or.

No, because that was not what my grounds were based on, was it? The grounds given for saying there is no "either or," has nothing to do with italicized words.

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

Jesus used the word 'megas' (vast) for great here, where John 1:30 used the word "emprosthen" (higher rank) for the same English word.

megas

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3173/nasb20/mgnt/0-1/

emprosthen

I don't know how to find this word. Here is a Google Search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=emp...NzQ2OWowajE1qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

No, because that was not what my grounds were based on, was it? The grounds given for saying there is no "either or," has nothing to do with italicized words.

I did not say that it does.

 

[williamjordan]

It is because you said there is no either or.

There is thing in Biblical interpretation called understanding the passage in light of the OT backdrop. In the OT backdrop it is God speaking to Israel's king,

My heart is moved with a good word;
I recite my compositions[b] to the king.
My tongue is the pen of a skilled scribe.
2 You are the most handsome of the sons of humankind;
grace is poured out on your lips;
therefore God has blessed you forever.
3 Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one,
in your splendor and your majesty.
4 And in your majesty ride victoriously,[c]
because of truth and humility and righteousness.
And let your right hand teach you awesome deeds.
5 Your arrows are sharp;
peoples fall under you
in the midst of the king’s enemies.
6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.
A scepter of uprightness is
the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
from among your companions with festive oil.

Unless you are going to suggest that God the Father was "anointed" with "festive oil," then there is no way to suggest that Heb. 1:8-9 is about the Father.

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

There is thing in Biblical interpretation called understanding the passage in light of the OT backdrop. In the OT backdrop it is God speaking to Israel's king,

That makes sense to me, without looking.

Unless you are going to suggest that God the Father was "anointed" with "festive oil," then there is no way to suggest that Heb. 1:8-9 is about the Father.

I did not say that.

 

[Mem]

Someone suggested that we are arguing with AI... there may be merit in that theory given the logical processes that are engaged.

 

[JacobMartinMertens]

Someone suggested that we are arguing with AI... there may be merit in that theory given the logical processes that are engaged.

I don't know who you think the AI would be.