(click for image credit)
Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007 Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.
Interesting title, no?
Some Christians will think it true but trivial.
Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.
Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.
I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)
But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?
No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard:
and this one:
I would add that in Revelation 5, the “worship” offered to both God and to Jesus is plainly fully religious worship, and not some other, lesser sort of honoring.
My recent public presentation was on a similar theme. Stay tuned for videos of the conference and screencast versions.
Print 
PDF
Andy
Let’s deal with Matt. 1:20: “that which is begotten in her.”
To beget is to cause to come into existence, so this child, the Son of God as Lk 1.35 describes him, is said to come into existence in Mary. The word is not “conceive” in Matt. 1:20. This is activity “in her.” The RV margin notes that the Greek in Matt. 1:20 is “begotten” which is certainly a fact. So combining Matt. and Luke we have a clear beginning of the Son of God which is based on that event:
John 8.58 should not contradict the Synoptics.
“I am” means in John “I am the Messiah” as the first occurrence in chapter 4 tells us. It is the strongest Messianic claim. Abraham looked forward to the Messiah’s coming – he certainly didn’t believe the Messiah was already alive! So Jesus is making the claim that he is the Messiah even before the time of Abraham: before Abraham was I am the Messiah. HIs minnistry antedates his birth in the counsels of God
The creed of Jesus is unitarian (Mk. 12:29; Jn. 17:3) and Ps 110:1 governs the NT and certainly doesn’t speak of God and God but God and the human Messiah, my lord, adoni. Ps 2.7 clinches the fact that the Son was brought into existence in time (cp LXX Ps 110:3).
Anthony
Xavier, if you read the verse IN CONTEXT you will see that the Pharisees MISSED what Jesus was saying, and turned their question around so that it had to do with his having seen Abraham. That’s the question Jesus was answering.
If you are free to ignore the question and make Jesus answer something the Jews did NOT ask, then you can make it mean anything at all.
By the way, Xavier, you may have forgotten, but you have already said (in the KR thread on “Agency in the Scriptures,” Comment #8):
When did you change your mind, Xavier?
By the way, John, you can see that Trinitarians have no monopoly on verbal gymnastics.
The apostles obviously thought that Psalm 2:7 referred to Christ’s RESURRECTION – not to his conception or his birth.
For example, in Acts 4:25-26, Peter and John quote the first two verses of Psalm 2 and apply it to the gathering together of “Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations and (the) peoples of Israel … against your holy child Jesus, whom you anointed” (v. 27).
Then in Acts 13:32-33, in a context (30-37) that deals entirely with Christ’s resurrection, Paul says,
So Psalm 2:7 does not in any way refer to Christ’s beginning in time.
I agree with you, though that Jesus was a Unitarian. Nothing he ever said suggested that God is anyone other than the Father.
Marg
Jesus saus Abraham saw his “DAY”, not his PERSON. Big difference.
I thought I had answered you but here it goes again.
Hebrews quotes Ps 102, a Messianic/eschatological Psalm looking to “future generation not yet CREATED” [v.18]. It is not looking back to Genesis, even though the phrase “in the beginning you laid the foundation of the heavens and earth…” is similar to that of the original Creation.
Furthermore, Hebrews quotes from the Greek version (LXX) and not the Hebrew version (MT) which speaks of a second “lord” who is addressed by God.
Scholarship is divided on this interpretation of Ps 2.7 and those who hold your view find it problematic, to say the least. Of note is their admission that the “eternal generation” doctrine was a later creation:
You’re having trouble reading, Xavier. I asked WHEN you changed your mind. It must have been fairly recently.
In case somebody would like to read a more detailed comment by Xavier on Ps. 102, you can find it here:
http://lhim.org/blog/2010/01/21/divine-agency-in-the-scriptures/#comment-58127
Have you READ what Peter and John said about Palm 2 in Acts 4:25-26?
And have you READ Paul’s explicit reference to Psalm 2 in relation to the resurrection in Acts 13:33?
I am flattered to have their view attributed to me, but honesty forbids me to take credit for it.
I think the Greek translators would have been amazed at this accusation. They were not changing the meaning of the passage. They were simply translating Yahweh as kurios.
As people who read the Septuagint are well aware, that was the NORMAL Greek translation for Yahweh.
So the acrobatics continue.
Anthony
Re Matt 1:20 the BDAG Lexicon specifically states “that which is conceived in her is of the Spirit Mt 1:20″. The overall entry that contains this statement is “become the parent of, beget ? by procreation…”
I know we both believe that this was no ordinary event. The question is whether Mary became pregnant with a brand new life or became pregnant with a pre existent life that had been miraculously placed in her womb. In either case, Jesus’ life as a human started at that point. Webster’s dictionary defines beget as “to procreate as the father : sire”. Interesting that both the BDAG and Webster use the word procreate.
As I said before, the Angel used the usual Greek word to describe Mary’s condition, but clearly this was no normal begetting and that the Greek word and its English counterparts do not adequately cover all the details. I think it is a mistake to read anything deeply doctrinal into the Angel’s words to Mary. He wasn’t explaining every little detail to her. He just told her that she was going to get pregnant without a human father being involved and that God, somehow, miraculously, caused the pregnancy by means of holy spirit.
With regard to Jn 8:58, let me emphasise that I’m talking about translation, you are talking interpretation. You interpret it as “‘I am’ means in John ‘I am the Messiah’”
Well, maybe it does, but let’s look at the context of John 8:58 to see if that is what it means here.
V57: the Jews say “You are only 50. How can you have seen Abraham?”. According to your interpretation, Jesus replies “I am the Messiah”. Do you think that it in any way represents even an attempt to answer their question?
But there is more, because Jesus said more than merely “I am”. What happens if we put your interpretation into the full sentence that Jesus spoke?
“truly I tell you, before Abraham was born I am (the Messiah)”
What is that supposed to mean? And how does that answer the Jews’ question? What is more, it’s a nonsense sentence in English because it violates English grammar in two ways. First, it uses an English present tense in a past tense context. Second, it dangles the verb at the end if the sentence.
The challenge for any translation and interpretation of Jn 8:58 is to retain the cohesion between the ego eimi and the ‘before Abraham was born’ parts of the sentence. The ‘traditional translation’ simply ignores the ‘before’ clause, ignores the Greek grammar, ignores English grammar and ignores the question that prompted Jesus’ reply. I would add that the Greek ‘be’ verb is one of the most frequently used verbs, just as it is in English. It’s a huge claim to say that whenever Jesus says ego eimi he always means he is the Messiah.
Once again I would add that I am NOT a trinitarian. I don’t believe a mysterious Godhead composed of several gods/persons/things etc. I believe in one God, the Father and that Jesus Christ was created by that one God. In think the main area where we seem disagree is ‘when’ that creation took place. I have backed my position up with Scriptures such as Philippians 2 and John 8:58 and have taken the time to explain, in considerable detail, the underlying Greek Grammar and that it supports my position.
Most of the objections to this position have been in the form of unsubstantiated assertions. I am happy with the case that I have made.
Marg
Yes I oftentime have trouble reading & I sure as heck cannot recall date, time etc. But it was through much study, research, etc.
Yes and I don’t see what this has to do with Ps 2.7 specifically.
As I said, scholarship is divided on this issue. But if you care to see what our view is you can go here: http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/11/csi-begetting.html
Please note the differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts regarding Ps 102.25-27. As some commentators have:
Marg
I would add to the last clause of your last post that the oldest fragments of the LXX contained the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters. I have seen it said, but cannot verify it for certain, that only copies of the LXX dated after 150AD have kyrios instead of YHWH.
So, the translators of the LXX seem not to be to blame for the two lords problem of the LXX of Psalm 2.
Bruce Metzger, in his book on the translations of the Bible into other languages, points out that after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the Jews stopped using the LXX and even declared some sort of day of mourning over it. Metzger then states that the LXX became known as the Christian’s Bible.
This is only speculation, but I wonder if, as the early church become corrupted and adopted the Trinity from pagan religions and Greek philosophy, that THEY removed the Tetragrammaton from the LXX, in order to cement their position. I would emphasise that this is mere speculation… But someone took it out and, somehow, I doubt the Jews would have done so…
Andy
Apologies. I said Psalm 2. I should have said Ps 110.
Keeping track of all these various posts and subjects is obviously overloading my poor brain
I am not entirely convinced that the worship of Jesus as God was developed over time, or that the disciples would have understood that Jesus was the Son of God and not God. I have recently been studying the letters of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan and in one he says something quite interesting:
“All these [Christians who later rejected Christ] as well worshipped [sic] your [Trajan's] statue and images of the gods, and blasphemed Christ. They maintained, however, that all that their guilt or error involved was that they were accustomed to assemble at dawn on a fixed day, to sing a hymn antiphonally to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by an oath . . . ” (10.96, Oxford World Classic’s Edition: Complete Letters)
Customarily, Pliny said that he executed Christians who remained obdurate–that is, those who refused to worship the Roman gods. Pliny writes to the Empire between 97 and 112 AD. I just found this interesting because only about 60 years after Christ, and perhaps within the same decade of the writing of the Gospel of John, Pliny says that Christians worshiped and sang to Christ as God.
Any thoughts?
Skylar
Ummm…the Romans were wrong? Just as the Pharisees who kept misunderstanding Jesus’ claim of Messiah. ; )
Thanks for the information about the earlier Septuagint, Andy. I wasn’t aware of it. That would explain a lot.
In any case, there is no reason to think that the translators deliberately changed the meaning of Psalm 102 to something they knew was NOT in the Hebrew text.
As for the meaning of verse 25, I appreciate Xavier’s comment in 2010, in which he points out that everywhere in the OT, such references to the heavens and the earth always refer to the Genesis creation.
In other words, the Psalmist is speaking to Yahweh, and he is talking about the physical creation of the universe.
But the principle of agency solves the problem. Yahweh created the heavens and the earth; but he did it through the agency of his Son.
Marg
I’m flattered but why won’t you deal with the PRESENT view I now hold based on the textual evidence? I am sure throughout your Christian life you have changed certain views as well?
Yes, in the Hebrew, Masoretic text but not in the Septuagint:
Who is this second “O Lord” who God the Father is addressing, according to the writer of Hebrews? Is this Lord in the Hebrew text?
We all know that gennao means to “procreate” of the Father and to “bear” of the mother. Would you please explain why Thayer’s Lexicon translates there “begotten” and not “conceived” in Mat 1.20. While the RV in 1881 tells us in the margin that the Greek word means “begotten”. Would you please cite OTHER occurrences in scripture where gennao, speaking of what happens IN THE MOTHER, means “conceive” rather than “beget”.
You have just explained away the precise language of Gabriel. He says, “For this reason PRECISELY the one begotten/born WILL BE the Son of God”. You are contradicting this by saying that THAT is not the reason for his being the Son of God because he was ALREADY the Son of God. Nobody said anything about EVERY TINY DETAIL. But the exact reason for calling Jesus the Son of God is given in a simple sentence.
Now tell us about the silent Son of God in the OT times? Heb 1.1-2.
According to Trinitarians, it’s “God the Son”. Is that the answer you’re looking for?
Tell me, is “the Lord” to whom the Psalmist is praying (see vv. 1, 16, 23) the second Lord or the first one?
The fact is, Xavier, there are not two “Lords” in the passage. There is ONE God, translated theos and ONEYHWH, translated kurios.
I think someone has to be desperate to insist that the translators deliberately changed the meaning of the text they were translating.
Xavier,
After having some time to think about your response (briefly, that the Romans could have simply been wrong), I think that it is too simplistic of an explanation. Let me give a couple of reasons why.
1. If Pliny is telling the truth within the same letter that I quoted above about how he actually questioned Christians before he had them executed if they failed to renounce their faith, then it seems plausible to think that the Roman officials at some point would have found out that the Christians weren’t worshiping Christ as God. After all, Christians were being condemned for sacrilege. However, to be fair, such trials do not seem to have taken place that often and Pliny really only asked them “Are you a Christian?” multiple times, not “What do you believe?”
2. Romans knew the difference between the worship of a deity and the honoring of a hero. One would not be condemned for sacrilege because one honored a hero, but because he refused to accept God’s other than his own. I would contend that if Jesus as the Son of God was understood to be a perfect human being and not God incarnate, then Christianity would be closer to hero veneration and so would not have been condemned for sacrilege.
3. The Roman Empire is well known for having spread far and wide because it incorporated gods of other nations into its own pantheon. Yet it did not do so when Christians appeared in the first century, even under what Roman authors considered to be a “golden age” of liberty and civil justice under Trajan.
In short, I’m not convinced that the Romans were absolutely oblivious to the practices and beliefs of their subjects during the time Pliny was writing. It’s possible that they could have been though; after all, communication was not as well-done before the time of Trajan and maybe Romans (like Nero) didn’t really care what their subjects believed precisely. I’m open to these ideas, but from what I know so far this doesn’t seem as plausible to me.
Skylar
Christians were identified by Pliny as those who refused to curse Christ even when threatened with death.
Pliny commented that ‘some Christians sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a ‘god’.’
There is a big difference between this and what you are suggesting!
I’ll bet that the ‘hymn’ that Pliny is referring to is the often quoted derivation of Philippians 2…which was in circulation within a few years of Pentecost.
Trinitarians claim that this was early evidence of “Trinitarian thinking’ within the Christian community.
As I noted in an earlier post – there is a much more simple and logical explanation for the verses in Philippians-
In verses 5 -8 Christ is the subject
In verse 9 God is the subject.
Paul was drawing parallels with Genesis Chapters 2 and 3 – and the situation that prevailed in the time about which he was writing
(i) The first Adam -who was made in Gods image – committed the great sin of trying to equate himself to
God (see Genesis 3v5).
This was the original sin.
(ii)The second Adam , was also made in the likeness of God (the scriptures do NOT say’ God’)
-but far from trying to snatch equality with God and disobeying God’s command, he humbled himself
and became obedient even unto death on the cross. He obviously emptied himself of ‘ego’ which is
what separates us from God.
At the end of all the desperate gymnastics there is no evidence in the scriptures supporting the Trinity.
As Dale has pointed out Christ, Peter and Paul were all Unitarians – they all agreed that Christ has a Father, who is also God.
Add to that the fact that “The Son is not the Father’ – and we can say conclusively the the Son is NOT God.
Blessings
John
Xavier, one thing you have not done yet is refute your own very strong argument that the making of the heavens and the earth ALWAYS, in the OT, refers to the Genesis creation. What made you change your mind on that?
Because if (as you suggest) the Greek translators deliberately changed the meaning of the passage so that “the Lord” refers to the Messiah, then the passage in Hebrews is a point in favor of Trinitarianism.
In fact, that’s what you will find in many Trinitarian commentaries.
I think we have discussed enough passages which definitely imply the pre-existence of Christ that those who are seriously committed to what the Bible teaches (rather than an official creed of some kind) will acknowledge that the case is sound.
It has been suggested that the Synoptics do not support this view. So I have been going through the gospel by Matthew, noting passages that harmonize with it. They are not “proof” texts – but they suggest someone that does NOT fit the idea of a human on earth, struggling against temptation.
There are quite a few of them. Check it out.
Marg
Heb 1.8 says: “But of the Son HE [GOD] says…”
God goes on to call the Son “god” [v.8] and “lord” [v.10]. There are 2 figures here. Now the debate is in what way is the Son “god” and “lord”.
Do you have at your disposal the Hebrew Masorestic and Septuagint text? If not please research what I have repeatedly pointed out regarding the differences of Ps 102.24-27.
Please see post #7.
I have read post #7 with care, Xavier, but I cannot find a single thing to explain why you no longer believe the following:
However, I will accept the fact that you can’t refute your own argument, and will not mention it again.
Marg
Let me try by quoting Anthony Buzzard’s excellent article on the subject…
For the full article see my link: http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/11/hebrews-110-and-age-to-come-reload.html
Skylar
Possible but highly unlikely whether or not the Roman authorities would bother to question Christians regarding their liturgies. If anything those who were interested in the early Christian sects ended up converting or being sympathetic to their cause [see the NT references to the early Church's interaction with Roman authorities].
My opinion from the historical evidence and what little we have in the way of secondary evidence when it comes to these interactions is that the Roman authorities acted on mostly hearsay and gossip. Just look at the first cases of Jewish-Christian persecutions at the time of Nero when they were used as scapegoats for the great Roman fire of the 60s. All the Romans cared about was whether or not people were into the Imperal cult of the day.
Xavier Skylar
You might not have noticed my post number 17 but I mentioned -
(i) Christians were ‘identified’ by their refusal to curse Christ
(ii) Skylar is incorrect when he states that ‘early Christians sang a hymn in which they worshipped Christ as God”
Please refer to
http://www.tektonics.org
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny
In both cases you will observe that ‘they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god”
As early as 36CE Christians were chanting a hymn based on Philippians 2 which referred to Christ as being ‘in the form of God’
All this is a far cry from what Skylar has been saying.
Best wishes
John
/
Xavier wrote:
“Heb 1.8 says: “But of the Son HE [GOD] says…”
God goes on to call the Son “god” [v.8] and “lord” [v.10]. There are 2 figures here. Now the debate is in what way is the Son “god” and “lord”.”
——–
It’s worth pointing out that the Greek of Heb 1:8 is ambiguous. It could be translated as ‘Your throne, O God’, using the vocative function or it could be translated as “God is your throne”, using the standard nominative form of the verse. Grammatically, there is nothing to choose between these possibilities.
Placing a lot of weight on such a verse would, therefore, be unwise. I am aware that the majority of Bible translations prefer the ‘Your throne, O God’ variant, but not all do. Of course, this is also a so called Trinitarian ‘proof text’ and most Bibles translators are Trinitarian, so it’s no surprise that this variant has the majority vote, as it were.
Andy
Andy
More a SUGGESTION than a true translation of the Greek.
And as you say many commentaries use this as an “affirmation of the deity of Christ” [i.e., the Son is God]. But those who disagree have to simply deal with the evidence at hand. The Son is “god” in an obvious, secondary sense since the text goes on to say that the Son has a God [v.9].
I believe the article you refer to, Xavier, is the one we both read two years ago. Enough has been said about that.
Andy – I have been enjoying the gospel by Matthew, and have listed some passages where Matthew quotes Jesus as saying things that suggest something more than a mortal man struggling against temptation. If these passages are incorrectly translated, I would appreciate help. My knowledge of Greek grammar is limited.
For example:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5: 17)
[Isn’t that a risky claim for a man who is still resisting temptation?]
“Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, etc.?’ And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you …’” (ch. 7:22, 23) [How can he be so sure?]
Over and over again in Matthew 5:21-48 he says, “You have heard that … But I say to you that …”
Then there is ch. 9:13 – “…for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” And ch. 18:11 – “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” [Come from where?]
“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (ch. 10:37)
“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. ” (ch. 16:25)
“For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (ch. 12:8) [!!!]
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall in no wise pass away. (ch. 23:35)
[Who does he think he is?]
Then there is Matthew 10: 32-33, and ch. 11:27-29, and ch. 13: 41, and ch. 16:18 and ch. 16:27, and ch. 19: 27-28, and ch. 23:44 – ALL of them expressing supreme self-confidence, entirely inappropriate for a mortal man who is still capable of sinning.
Marg
Well you keep saying I have not shown you how and why my view on this verse has changed and instead keep bringing up the past.
But since you say you have read it could you care to refute the points it makes concerning the textual difference between the MT and Septuagint and the fact that Ps 102 is Messianic [future]?
Xavier, Andy answered the question about the textual difference between the Masoretic text and the LXX. In detail.
The fact remains that “Lord” is credited with founding the heavens and the earth (past tense – not future).
Marg
So Jesus is “the LORD/YHWH” Who created the Genesis earth? So the passage should read as:
?!
Xavier
It’s not a suggestion that the Greek could be translated as ‘God is your throne’. It’s a fact. The Greek ‘ho theos’ is in the nominative and this expression is the usual way that the NT writiers refer to God when they speak of God the Father. But viewing ‘ho theos’ as being a nominative expression requires the translation ‘God is your throne’. Viewing it as a vocative allows for the ‘Your throne, O God’. As I have said before, there is nothing to choose, grammatically, between them. One professor of Biblical languages concluded that the theology of the translator is the deciding factor…
The NET Bible is trinitarian in its outlook. One of its main contributors is Daniel Wallace. Do I really need to say more? Their note casts doubt on the possibility of the translation on theological grounds. Grammatically, this ‘alternative’ translation is 100% viable and appears as such in not a few translations.
Marg
The verses you quote seem correctly translated to me, although Matt 12:8 would possibly be better as “the son of man is a lord of the sabbath’ as the Greek word ‘kurios’ lacks the Greek article and there are no other definitizing aspects in that verse. But let’s not quibble about it!
You are, of course, reading some things into these verses to say that Jesus was above temptation. Counter arguments could be presented, and I’m sure some will
Andy
Andy
Where? So far I cannot come up with 1 single translation. And if it “is 100% viable” shouldn’t the translations and commentatires be at least split on this?
Who? Got anyone else to back them as well?
Moffatt’s translation, Goodspeed’s ‘An American Translation’ and Byington’s ‘The Bible in Living English’ all use the ‘God is your throne’ translation in the main text. The New Revised Standard Version and Today’s English Version both state in their footnotes that it is an acceptable alternative to ‘Your throne, O God’.
We both know that the NUMBER of translations that suuport version x as to those who support version y is of no use in determining its correctness. Translators bring in their own theologies and sometimes biases into the translation process.
Regardless of the opinions of scholars, anyone who can read Greek will see that their are two possibilities here. And that’s all I’m pointing out. The grammar allows for both translations and there are no grammatical indications as to which one is more likely. The NET Bible’s comments are interpretational and not grammatical.
The Tyndale Commentary states “The opening words, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, cause a problem, for they can be taken either as a direct address to the Son in which case the implication cannot be avoided that the Son is being described as God, or less probably the words can be understood to mean ‘The throne of your God’, or ‘God is your throne’, in which case the implication that the Son is God is avoided”
They don’t give any evidence as to why they think the alternative is less probable.
The Expositor’s Greek New Testament Commentary states: “It does not matter, therefore, whether we translate “Thy throne is God” or “Thy throne, O God,” for the point here to be affirmed is not that the Messiah is Divine, but that He has a throne and everlasting dominion. Westcott adopts the rendering “God is thy throne,” and compares Ps. 71:3; Isa. 26:4; Ps. 90:1, 91:1, 2; Deut. 33:27. He thinks it scarcely possible that “God” can be addressed to the King.”
Finally, Robertson’s Word Pictures states: “O God. This quotation (the fifth) is from Psa. 45:7f. A Hebrew nuptial ode for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether [ho theos] is here the vocative … or [ho theos] is nominative (subject or predicate) with [estin] (is). “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Either makes good sense.”
When a grammarian of Archibald Robertson’s status says a translation makes good sense, it also makes good sense to accept it…
Andy
Andy
Andy
Agreed but it doesnt mean they get it wrong all the time.
Sure but it makes no sense that the writers are calling the throne God when the subject is the Son. Hence the OVERWHELMING grammatical/translational number against the MINORITY view.
Its interesting that alot of anti-trinitarians use this weak argument but the reality is that the Son CAN BE called “god” in a secondary sense. Just like the Davidic king, Moses and judges were.
Pick your poison I guess.
Andy
The Greek, read most naturally, says “Your throne O God,” and just ask the rabbis about the Hebrew.
They had no difficulty with the Messiah being “elohim,” King Messiah.
“God is your throne” is most unnatural and unnecessary I think.
Xavier
Of course, the majority view, huge or not, is not a deciding factor in settling this sort of thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
You wrote: “Its interesting that alot of anti-trinitarians use this weak argument but the reality is that the Son CAN BE called “god” in a secondary sense.”
I fully agree. But there are far better verses than Heb 1:8 to prove it…
Anthony
In my post dated May 25th, I did ‘ask the rabbis’ or, at least, some of them:
Tanakh, an English OT translation produced by Jewish scholars and rabbis, translates it (the Psalm) this way:
“Your divine throne is everlasting;
your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.”
They cross reference this to 1 Chron 29:23, which they translate as “Solomon successfully took over the throne of the Lord as king instead of his father David”.
So it would seem that at least some rabbis see it differently.
I don’t agree with your statement about ‘the most natural way to read the Greek’. HO THEOS is in the nominative and the most natural way to translate a Greek nominative is as the subject of a sentence or as a nominative predicate. The grammar allows for the nominative to be used as a vocative but, statistically, that is the exception and not the rule. Especially so with HO THEOS, where the vast majority of LXX and NT verses simply mean ‘God’.
I also stated in my May 25th post:
“If the writer wanted to write ‘God is your throne’ he had no choice but to write the verse as it is written. Varying the word order would alter nothing. He would have no choice but to live with the ambiguity.
If he wanted to write “your throne, O God” he could have written the verse as it stood, and live with the ambiguity. Or he could have used the Greek Vocative case proper, in which case he would not write HO THEOS but simply THEE, which is God in the vocative case and this excludes any possibility of ambiguity.”
Two questions that needs answering are: If the Psalm is best translated as ‘Your throne, O God’ (or, indeed, if that is the only correct translation) they WHY did the LXX translator not use the vocative THEE and, instead, choose the nominative HO THEOS? WHY did the writer of Hebrews, who was under no obligation to quote the LXX verbatim, not change it to THEE if he really intended to say ‘Your throne, O God’?
To my knowledge, no grammarian who favours the vocative translation has ever addressed these. Jesus’ words at Mtt 27:46 do address God as THEE, so it cannot be argued that the vocative case proper was no longer being used in the first century.
To sum up – I am simply pointing out that a grammatically acceptable alternative translation to Heb 1:8 is available. Thus, any argument based on Heb 1:8 needs to be wrapped with the proviso “IF it’s a vocative, then xyz…’ and ‘if it’s a nominative then abc…’. I can understand anyone’s reluctance to concede this point, because it weakens any argument based on Heb 1:8, whichever translation you favour.
Andy
Andy
Great. We’ll agree to disagree.
Andy
Thanks,
What possible difficulty is there in addressing Jesus as god or God. The vast learning of the NAB translators give us in Ps 45 “your throne o god.” King Messiah is the meaning to Jews (see Strack-Billerbeck on the Hebrews passage). So I don’t see the point of making any issue here.
Non-Trinitarians do not need to be defensive!
Moses is called God and so are judges.
Anthony
Hi Anthony
I don’t disagree. There is no issue at all in calling Jesus god or a god – as Xavier puts it a ‘secondary’ god, one created by God and who worships God as his creator.
My background probably causes me to be seeking proofs at an almost forensic level. I used to play chess at tournament level and now work in I.T. so I’m drawn to logic and proofs rather than probabilities and possibilities. I accept this is both a strength and a weakness…
My ‘defensiveness’ about using Heb 1:8 to ‘prove’ Jesus is a god is that I know that a reasonable counter argument exists. Yes,I understand that it’s disputed by many, although most of the disputes are from trinitarians, trying to rescue a cherished proof text. The arguments for and against the possible translations don’t have enough weight to prove or disprove anything (IMHO) but rather leave the question in stasis with two reasonable explanations, neither of which in themselves is decisive.
Ironically, I think, if I read the info in your site correctly, that the proof texts I would use to state that Jesus is a god would probably meet with a measure of disagreement from you
So we arrive at similar conclusions via different routes with some of the details differing.
in any case, I think we both agree that Jesus is saviour and lord, to be held in the highest esteem as one who performed the awe inspiring act of sacrificing himself for the likes of someone like me. But all this honour is, in the end, to the glory of God the Father, the creator of Jesus and the ultimate cause of everything.
Perhaps we can move on to discuss something else?
Andy
Andy
I dont see Jesus as some ‘secondary god’. What I wrote was that the meaning of the word ‘god’ is obviously used in a SECONDARY SENSE when not applied to YHWH, “the God of gods” [Deu 10.17; Dan 2.47]
Sorry Xavier, my misunderstanding.
Andy
Andy
Thanks,
We covered the issues fairly fully in the two books [Self-Inflicted Wound; Jesus not a Trinitarian].
The greater issue is the Great Commission, I think, is getting the Kingdom Gospel out.
You are perhaps aware of the various sites listed at our YouTube page? http://www.youtube.com/user/AbrahamicMovement
Sean Finnegan’s site is full of good stuff [christianmonotheism.com] and Dan Gill gets about 1/2 million hits a month at 21stcr.org.
Strack Billerbeck is as you know that great classic documenting the Mishah and Talmud background to the NT.
I will look again at the rabbis on Ps 45.
The fact that the Father is 1300 times GOD and Jesus is God twice for certain, ought to be quite conclusive, but as we know the Trinis don’t give up easily. Some do, however, and we receive daily encouragement from those who see who God is.
What do you do for fellowship? Home Church?
In hope,
Anthony
Hi Anthony
I’m aware of your books, but haven’t read them (yet). Time is always the one thing that I don’t have enough of…
I’ve read Patrick Navas’ book on the Trinity – ‘Divine Truth or Human Tradition?’. I found it very interesting. I have never been a trinitarian, but I was interested to see his approach and his even-handed argumentation. It’s a wordy book, but the words seemed, in the main, good to me.
I do OK for fellowship. I have a number of like-minded friends and a very supportive wife, which always helps!
Andy
Andy
Thanks, and yes, Patrick writes very interestingly. Glad you have some fellow believers to meet with,
Anthony
Andy – if you haven’t read Samuel Clarke’s book on the trinity, it is worth reading. He lists all the verses in the New Testament that have any bearing on the subject of God, his Son and his Spirit. I think it is tremendous.
Dale has an interesting post on Clarke here (I hope the link works):
http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2739
I’m not sure what I’m doing wrong, but I want to try once more. Just once:
“http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2739#more-2739″
Hi Marg
Thanks for the link. – the second one works
I think Dale mentioned this book in one if his recent interview videos and he self publishes it on lulu.com
Another one to add to my ever growing ‘to read’ list.
One book I stumbled upon and actually got around to reading is ‘Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of Trinity?’ (http://www.amazon.com/Should-Christianity-Abandon-Doctrine-Trinity/dp/1581129408) where the author examines all the trinity proof texts.
I cannot comment on his comments on OT Hebrew, but his NT Greek seems sound enough.
I have to admit I sometimes tire of reading such books, I guess it’s because I don’t want to spend all my time disproving something I don’t believe in anyway. Like Anthony, I think the ‘Great Commission’ (nice phrase, BTW) is more important, although that usually involves refuting the trinity…
Andy
Andy
I think the ‘Great Commission’ (nice phrase, BTW) is more important, although that usually involves refuting the trinity
And confessing the HUMAN Messiah.
What I appreciate most about Clarke’s book is that, if you skip the comments, you are reading the New Testament. It’s value (to me) is that ALL the passages relating to each part can be read together, and I don’t have to look them all up separately in a concordance. I am using it as a reference book, rather than as a commentary. And I value it highly.
I think we all agree that making known God’s provision of salvation through the work of his Son is more important than refuting the idea of a tri-une God. Besides, there are trinitarians who make the “good news” very clear – Dallas Willard being one of them.
In fact, it was through such a group that I was first led to recognize my utter helplessness to please God on my own, and trust the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. (As Hebrews 7-10 makes so wonderfully clear.)
So I think we do not necessarily have to refute trinitarianism in order to present the gospel. If we stick with what the Bible actually says, a tri-une God will never surface anyway.
On the other hand, I love the Bible, and I want to learn what it says about God and his Son and his Spirit. It must be worth learning, or it wouldn’t be there.
By the way, Andy, thank you for the note re Mat. 12:8. I understand the two grammatical reasons you give for translating it as “the son of man is a lord of the sabbath”. I accept that.
[I can't think of any other man who could say that, but I agree it is not worth quibbling about.]
Anthony
Sorry, I missed your post dated 1st June where, in part, you wrote:
“Would you please explain why Thayer’s Lexicon translates there “begotten” and not “conceived” in Mat 1.20. While the RV in 1881 tells us in the margin that the Greek word means “begotten”. Would you please cite OTHER occurrences in scripture where gennao, speaking of what happens IN THE MOTHER, means “conceive” rather than “beget”.
You have just explained away the precise language of Gabriel. He says, “For this reason PRECISELY the one begotten/born WILL BE the Son of God”…”
———————————
Obviously, I cannot explain why Thayer’s lexicon represents a word in any particular way. I could ask the same question “Why did the BDAG lexicon suggest ‘conceived’ in Matt 1:20?” and neither of us could answer it. I have noticed that the some translations, such as the ESV, use ‘conceived’ and some other translations use ‘begotten’ for Matt 1:20. Unless we start reading a lot into the English word begotten, the terms ‘been conceived’ and ‘been begotten’ are virtually synonymous.
With regard to what Gabriel said (I think you are quoting Luke 1:26-35, but please correct me if I’m wrong) – Gabriel doesn’t actually say “For this reason PRECISELY the one begotten/born WILL BE the Son of God” does he? The ESV translates this as:
“30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and WILL BE CALLED the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born WILL BE CALLED holy—the Son of God.”
I don’t think I’m explaining what Gabriel actually says away – whether Jesus existed prior to his birth or not has no real bearing on what Gabriel says.
Andy
Andy
Begetting in the womb is the activity of the Father. Mothers “conceive” and Fathers “beget”. I hope you can read Brown’s Birth of the Messiah p 290-291:
Note also what Brown says:
First of all you are not dealing with the kai following dio, “therefore PRECISELY/INDEED”. When a person comes into existence he cannot already be in existence. This would be sheer NON-SENSE.
Many top commentaries on Luke fully agree with me. There is no preexistent Son anywhere in Luke or Acts. So why make the Gospel of John contradict them?