Did Jesus say he was God???

[Gaura Priya]

Yes, very clear.
By the way, we've had a discussion about this one too, before many pages in this thread.
I promise you'll laugh if you read their counter-argument.

“God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] sceptre of your kingdom is the sceptre of uprightness."

-- Hebrews 1:8


"God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever;
The sceptre of your kingship is a sceptre of uprightness."

-- Psalm 45:6


I have nothing constructive, because I am already biased towards a Biblical Unitarian or Arian perspective... but it's interesting to note that it's a reference from the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[javajo]

Some early Christians taught the Trinity, go here for a much longer list: Early Christian faith on Trinity, deity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit

150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56)

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3)
.
140 AD Aristides "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16)
.
150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)

150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37)

150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63.

150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI)

150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68)

 

[Mark2020]

Should read as: "G-d is thy throne", it's a quote from Psalms about the King. Even CARM admits this is a worthy way of reading it. That's saying volumes. The RSV has an interesting footnote on it.

Forgot our discussion about it?
This means G-d is the throne of the Son?

 

[Shermana]

How the early Church fathers viewed Jesus

Same problem with the Anarthrous of John 1:1c, Justin called Jesus "a god" and an angel. A similar issue is made with Catholic interpretations of Iraneus as they casually translate the Anarthrous as if it were with an article.

Justin Martyr was a prominent apologist of Christianity in the first half of the second century CE. He affirmed the superiority of God over Jesus: “... we know no ruler more kingly or just than He {Jesus} except God {the Father} who begot Him.” In other words, “God is more kingly than Jesus.” He also wrote that God begat Jesus, before he created the world, and that Jesus was the captain of God’s army (i.e. the Archangel): “... God begat, before all creatures, a Beginning {Jesus} ... who is called by the Holy Spirit {in the Holy Scriptures}, now {heis called} the Glory of the Lord, now {he is called} the Son, again Wisdom, again {he is called} an Angel, then a god, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave {Nun}.” Justin Martyr did not mix God with Jesus. His phrase “again an Angel, then a god” indicates that the titles “angel” and “god” were synonymous. Justin Martyr also wrote that God is the cause of all things: “ ‘But what do you call God?’ said he. ‘That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things--that, indeed, is God.’ So I answered him.’ ” He believed that God is the cause of all things. He is the cause of Jesus. He begat Jesus. Justin Martyr believed that God “always maintains the same nature.” This implies that Jesus is not God. Jesus did not maintain the same nature. He assumed the human nature. He considered Jesus “an improperly called god”: an angel. Here is a quotation from Justin Martyr that is of great theological importance: “{we believe that:} ... He is the Son of the living God Himself, and believe Him to be in the second place, and the Prophetic Spirit in the third.” The Father God comes first, Jesus comes second, and the Holy Spirit comes third.

 

[Mark2020]

[FONT=&quot]

(Hebrews 1:8 [KJV]) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Hebrews 1:8 [TR]) προς δε τον υιον [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο θρονος σου ο θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot] εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] :

Never read this before?
(Psalms 22:1 [LXX])
(21:1) εις το τελος υπερ της αντιλημψεως της εωθινης ψαλμος τω δαυιδ (21:2) ο θεος ο θεος μου προσχες μοι ινα τι εγκατελιπες με μακραν απο της σωτηριας μου οι λογοι των παραπτωματων μου

(Psalms 22:2 [LXX])
(21:3) ο θεος μου κεκραξομαι ημερας και ουκ εισακουση και νυκτος και ουκ εις ανοιαν εμοι

(John 20:28 [TR])
και απεκριθη ο θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου

(Revelation 6:10 [TR])
και εκραζον φωνη μεγαλη λεγοντες εως ποτε ο δεσποτης ο αγιος και ο αληθινος ου κρινεις και εκδικεις το αιμα ημων απο των κατοικουντων επι της γης

(Revelation 15:3 [TR])
και αδουσιν την ωδην μωσεως του δουλου του θεου και την ωδην του αρνιου λεγοντες μεγαλα και θαυμαστα τα εργα σου κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ δικαιαι και αληθιναι αι οδοι σου ο βασιλευς των αγιων
[/FONT]
(Psalms 22:2 [KJV])
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

(Psalms 22:2 [NIV])
O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.

(Revelation 6:10 [KJV])
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
[FONT=&quot]
Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament::

[/FONT]
πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος

[FONT=&quot]But to the Son [he declares], “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are three syntactical possibilities for [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] here: as a subject (“God is your throne&#8221, predicate nom. (“your throne is God&#8221, and nom. for voc. (as in the translation above). The S and PN translations can be lumped togetherand set off against the nom. for voc. approach. It is our view that the nom. for voc. view is to be preferred for the following reasons: (1) It is an overstatement to argue that if a writer wanted to address God he could have used the vocative [/FONT]θεέ[FONT=&quot], because no where in the NT is this done except in Matt 27:46. The articular nom. for voc. is the almost universal choice. (2) This is especially the case in quoting from the LXX (as in Heb 1:8; Heb 10:7), for the LXX is equally reticent to use the voc. form, most likely since Hebrew lacked such a form. (3) The accentuation in the Hebrew of Ps 45:7 suggests that there should be a pause between “throne” and “God” (indicating that tradition took “God” as direct address). (4) This view takes seriously the [/FONT]μέν[FONT=&quot] … [/FONT]δέ [FONT=&quot]construction in vv 7–8, while the S-PN view does not adequately handle these conjunctions. Specifically, if we read v 8 as “your throne is God” the [/FONT]δέ[FONT=&quot] loses its adversative force, for such a statement could also be made of the angels, viz., that God reigns over them.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot] Besides the Targum renders the verse of Ps 45:
The throne of your glory, O Lord, lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter.[/FONT]
It is O Lord. [vocative not nominative]

 

[Shermana]

Why shouldn't those be read as the Article instead? Explain why they are the Vocative necessarily other than Translator preference. Also, the Targum you speak of, is using it as an article, not a Vocative. Where is your source?

 

[Mark2020]

Why shouldn't those be read as the Article instead? Explain why they are the Vocative necessarily other than Translator preference. Also, the Targum you speak of, is using it as an article, not a Vocative. Where is your source?

Again, you didn't read my post. Everything is well explained there, and with examples. Again, too much evidence...

But I want to understand what do you mean by "thy throne is G-d"

For the targum, it is here:
NTCS

 

[Shermana]

No, each of your examples can and should be read as the article, that was my point. They are rendered as Vocative perhaps for English speakers who aren't familiar with the concept of the Article in instances where it might otherwise sound strange or go against their doctrine as is the case here.

G-d is a throne, just like he is a Rock.

Please cite the page on your link where they prove conclusively that the Targum is using the Vocative as opposed to an article.

 

[javajo]

Your article on Justin Martyr takes very short phrases then says, "in other words", "i.e.', and then keeps saying what he "meant", or "believed". Here is what Justin Martyr ACTUALLY SAID:

"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (1st Apology, ch 63)
"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue w/ Trypho, ch 36)
"He (Christ)is...deserving to be worshipped, as God and Christ." (Dialogue w/Trypho, ch 63)

Ok, done typing

 

[Shermana]

Your article on Justin Martyr takes very short phrases then says, "in other words", "i.e.', and then keeps saying what he "meant", or "believed". Here is what Justin Martyr ACTUALLY SAID:

"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (1st Apology, ch 63)
"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue w/ Trypho, ch 36)
"He (Christ)is...deserving to be worshipped, as God and Christ." (Dialogue w/Trypho, ch 63)

Ok, done typing

The last part of 1Ap63 should read as "is even a god". My link clearly proves this. Your response in no way shape or form disproves what my link says. If you're going to say it's wrong, you have to say why exactly. That's why I specifically mentioned the issue of the Anarthrous. Same thing with "A god and Christ". It's a similar case to the translation of John 1:1c. Dubious translators like to hope you don't mind an anarthrous Theos being translated as "God" instead of "a god" . It is no surprise your own source is from Bible.ca. We have the same issues of how to translate Church Father writings with John 1:1c. If you want to skip over the fact that its an anarthrous for the sake of doctrine, that's your own business.

 

[Mark2020]

No, each of your examples can and should be read as the article, that was my point. They are rendered as Vocative perhaps for English speakers who aren't familiar with the concept of the Article in instances where it might otherwise sound strange or go against their doctrine as is the case here.

Sorry, but that's desperate. Try reading them again.

G-d is a throne, just like he is a Rock.

Still doesn't make sense.
G-d is the throne of the Son!
Of course I know this is a wrong translation, but still it doesn't make sense to me.

Please cite the page on your link where they prove conclusively that the Targum is using the Vocative as opposed to an article.

Psalm 42
I hope you can continue from here.

 

[javajo]

The last part of 1Ap63 should read as "is even a god". My link clearly proves this. Your response in no way shape or form disproves what my link says. If you're going to say it's wrong, you have to say why exactly. That's why I specifically mentioned the issue of the Anarthrous. It's a similar case to the translation of John 1:1c. Dubious translators like to hope you don't mind an anarthrous Theos being translated as "God" instead of "a god" . It is no surprise your own source is from Bible.ca

Yeah, well they actually BELIEVE the Bible.

 

[Shermana]

Yeah, well they actually BELIEVE the Bible.

So do JW's, if you're saying that only by believing in the Texts will one be able to translate them correctly, you'll have to explain why. Often its people who believe in it who have the worst misunderstandings. I've met plenty of Atheists and non-believers who grossly misinterpret various passages or don't understand the cultural context, but if you believe that belief is a necessity for grammatical accuracy in the translation, you're out of line.

 

[Shermana]

Sorry, but that's desperate. Try reading them again.

Your response is desparate. Try again and actually disprove why each case would not work with the article or honorably concede.

Still doesn't make sense.

It's not my problem if G-d being a rock as well doesn't make sense.

G-d is the throne of the Son!
Of course I know this is a wrong translation, but still it doesn't make sense to me.

I can imagine why it makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me, especially in the sense of G-d being one's rock in the OT even.


http://targum.info/pss/ps2.htm

Psalm 42
I hope you can continue from here.

What's there to continue, it says "The God" which doesn't translate well to English. Compare your translation of 42:2 to the KJV. The Vocative never actually is used.

My soul thirsteth for God for the living God when shall I come and appear before God

As the deer that longs for streams of water, thus my soul longs for you, O Lord.[1]

Just because your translation chooses to use a Vocative doesn't mean others agree. IMO, it's outright DISHONEST to use it as a Vocative.

 

[Shermana]

Sorry, but that's desperate. Try reading them again.

Your response is desparate. Try again and actually disprove why each case would not work with the article or honorably concede.

Still doesn't make sense.

It's not my problem if G-d being a rock as well doesn't make sense.

G-d is the throne of the Son!
Of course I know this is a wrong translation, but still it doesn't make sense to me.

I can imagine why it makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me, especially in the sense of G-d being one's rock in the OT even.

Psalm 42
I hope you can continue from here.

What's there to continue, it says "The God" which doesn't translate well to English. There's no reason to translate it as "O God", you'll have to explain why one must necessarily as opposed to "The God".

 

[Mark2020]

Your response is desparate. Try again and actually disprove why each case would not work with the article or honorably concede.

No. I see you're left with nothing now.
Let others judge (like the previous one)
"concede" this makes me laugh.
There is too much evidence for you to try to even discuss

I can imagine why it makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me, especially in the sense of G-d being one's rock in the OT even.

Yes, given that a rock is the same as a throne.

What's there to continue, it says "The God" which doesn't translate well to English. Compare your translation of 42:2 to the KJV. The Vocative never actually is used.

That's even more desperate. You don't know what a targum is?

ps. Don't make me quote your arguments from our previous discussion about this verse.

 

[Shermana]

So that's a no to the request of proving how the Targum proves its an article instead of a Vocative. Please go dig up whatever quote you feel would support your position,. Telling me that I'm left with nothing now is cute when you do nothing but call my response desparate. More "useless words".

Edit: I deleted the comparison of the KJV translation since your version appeared to have used a different numbering, I caught that right afterwards but my computer froze before I could delete it in time I see. I saw that.

I don't see why one would have a problem reading that G-d is the King's throne any differently than G-d being their rock. If it makes no sense to you, that's not my problem.

The point is, there is absolutely no reason to read it as a Vocative, and every reason to read it as an article. It is purely Evocative to read it as Vocative, and quite Provocative I'd say.

 

[Mark2020]

Well, I didn't want to quote it, but you made me:
Check your argument here:

...
It's very simple, the Article is NEVER used as a term of addressment, I challenged you to find another location where it's used as such. You can't. The Targum still says "The Lord is thy throne", and the Trinitarian translators have a reason to push this biased translation. ...

Can you see that you're trying different and desperate arguments, with a lot of "in accurate arguments", to put it in a good way?

I then showed you this:
(Psalms 22:1 [LXX])
(21:1) εις το τελος υπερ της αντιλημψεως της εωθινης ψαλμος τω δαυιδ (21:2) ο θεος ο θεος μου προσχες μοι ινα τι εγκατελιπες με μακραν απο της σωτηριας μου οι λογοι των παραπτωματων μου

(Psalms 22:2 [LXX])
(21:3) ο θεος μου κεκραξομαι ημερας και ουκ εισακουση και νυκτος και ουκ εις ανοιαν εμοι

(John 20:28 [TR])
και απεκριθη ο θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου

(Revelation 6:10 [TR])
και εκραζον φωνη μεγαλη λεγοντες εως ποτε ο δεσποτης ο αγιος και ο αληθινος ου κρινεις και εκδικεις το αιμα ημων απο των κατοικουντων επι της γης

(Revelation 15:3 [TR])
και αδουσιν την ωδην μωσεως του δουλου του θεου και την ωδην του αρνιου λεγοντες μεγαλα και θαυμαστα τα εργα σου κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ δικαιαι και αληθιναι αι οδοι σου ο βασιλευς των αγιων

(Psalms 22:2 [KJV])
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

(Psalms 22:2 [NIV])
O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.

(Revelation 6:10 [KJV])
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

If you still don't know what a [FONT=&quot]Nominative for Vocative is, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]then I suggest you study some Greek.

I hope you don't make me quote more of your posts.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]( because there is much worse than that, if you forgot)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Shermana]

And you'll have to prove why each of those cases is necessarily in the Vocative. I know I've asked several times, but still, if you're going to insist as if they can't possibly be read as anything BUT the Vocative, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they should not be used as the Nominative in each of those cases.

Otherwise, anyone can see that each of those cases can and SHOULD be read as an article. Again, the English doesn't always fit with an article. And I'm assuming once again, that you're going to absolutely refuse to explain why the Targum uses it as a Vocative instead of a nominative.

Your own example of John 20:28 betrays you, bet you didn't catch that!

 

[Mark2020]

And you'll have to prove why each of those cases is necessarily in the Vocative...

No I don't have to prove anything.
I've already proved my case.

ps Try not to look more desperate than that