Free #687
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:1-8)
The first thing you should consider is that verse 6 is one of those pesky Bible discrepancies that Christians like to interpret out of their sight. It's regarded as a quote. But there's nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to it. Some (John Calvin for one) says it relates to this verse:
All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods! (Psalms 97:7)
That the gods in this verse refers to higher powers like angels. Even for an interpretation, that's quite a stretch. Since in the same verse is a reference to the context, idols. And some think that the writer quoted the Septuagint where this is found at the end of Deuteronomy 32:43, though not in the Hebrew in that place. I only have Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint. Nothing like that there.
What matters is that the writer of Hebrews, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote verse 6. There is no basis for dismissing what is said simply because it isn't found word for word in the OT.
]That notwithstanding, the context should make clear what is being talked about. The context clearly refers to government, not essence.
What do you mean by government? The context is clearly talking about the Son being superior to the angels, within which, as I pointed out, we once again have a statement where the Son is said to have been in existence prior to the creation of the world.
And supporting that we have verses 10-13, which are verses speaking of YHWH, yet we have the Father
applying them to the Son. The meaning of that cannot be more clear.
]It's the same mistaken notion that Trinitarians have about Isaiah 9:6. The context clearly refers to government, not essence. And even if the latter did refer to essence, it would be a proof text for Modalism, not the standard Trinitarian view.
What does your notion of government have to do with anything? What you are missing with Isa. 9:6 is that the child is born, but the son is
given. And it is this child, this son, who will be known as "Mighty God." Although Jesus isn't the Father, he does say that he is in the Father and the Father is in him; that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father. There are other senses in which he could be seen as a father but it matters not at this point, since what matters is that this verse says he is God. That cannot be ignored.
]As I understand it, an argument from silence isn't an argument. I don't know which verses you are referring to that appears to a Trinitarian that Jesus was worshiped while on the earth. Or how many could just be a reference to a common practice at the time, respect for one regarded as a superior. At least some people saw Jesus as a teacher and a miracle worker. Both very prestigious in Israel in those days.
All from the ESV:
Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.
Mat 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
This is one of those uses of "Son of God" that I keep looking for when I ask anti-trinitarians to look up the term. Of importance is the context: Jesus gets into the boat after walking on the water, and the wind ceased. Now note the response of those in the boat. This shows that the term, or phrase, "Son of God" is of much greater significance when applied to Jesus than when applied to men. To sum, Jesus is seen to have command over even the elements (not the only time we see this), to which the disciples rightly respond with worship.
Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
There are other verses where worship could be implied but even here we do not see one instance of rebuke from Jesus.
]But there is one verse that comes to mind:
26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:26-29)
I can see where v. 28 might be construed as Thomas saying that Jesus is both his lord and his God at first glance under the right bias. What Jesus said would be strange if that's what Thomas was saying. Remember this is all in response to Thomas' skepticism:
24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
This has nothing to do with Jesus being God. Thomas was skeptical about Jesus' resurrection.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1Peter 1:3)
God, the father, resurrected Jesus. So there's nothing to say that Thomas' reference is not to both the father and the son. His skepticism about both being ended at that point.
That could be, yet from the context we have no reason to believe that he was talking to the Father as well. See you're interpreting again.
]I have to say that I identify with Thomas. Thanks to Christianity, I'm as skeptical as he is. Christianity is all that can be seen today of Jesus of Nazareth on the earth. You, of course, believe that just believing the Bible as the end of it all isn't possible since the only way to understand it is by interpretation.
And yet you have just given your interpretation of the Bible. You are doing the very thing you say we shouldn't do. Why? Because it is absolutely unavoidable. I'll even show you in the other thread that you have done so
again while at the same time denouncing interpretation. Your position on the matter is entirely inconsistent.
And that surely is how Christianity understands the Bible. That's an indisputable fact. It's what prevents me from being a Christian. Because my "interpretation" isn't the same as theirs. It also makes what the Catholics say about the necessity for an authoritative interpreter seem like common sense. And since Christians also say the Bible is something different from the usual writings of man, being the written word of God, the inconsistency between that and Bible interpretation just makes me skeptical about the Bible.
No matter what Christians think of Christian interpretation and denominationalism, I hope it disgusts God more than does me. It disgusts me, but I'm not near enough like God for it to disgust me perfectly. It just makes me skeptical.[/quote]
And yet you continue to interpret.
But you cannot help it, no one can. Denominationalism isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, although it is very problematic to the extent it goes and for some of the absolutely silly reasons. The main problem is that there is almost a complete lack of unity and love between denominations. Of course, we should be able to get along within the same denomination with some differing beliefs, not that beliefs are the only reasons for denominationalism.
