"I shall be his father...."

[Athetotheist]

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" So asks the author of Hebrews 1:5. The argument being made is that Jesus, the supposed "Messiah", is higher than the angels because he has been given a greater name.

If this were to be refuted, where would the reader be expected to look for such refutation? The reader would look in scripture, right? If all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16), that would be the go-to source.

"I shall be his father and he shall be my son." So is Jehovah quoted by the author of 2 Samuel 7:14. Who is the son in this verse whom the father is claiming? Solomon.

Applying the logic of Hebrews 1:5, when did Jehovah say at any time, "I will be his father and he will be my son" referring to the Messiah, since it's generally agreed that the Messiah wasn't Solomon?

(Note: trying to fit Solomon in as a "forerunner of the Messiah" doesn't work, since a messianic "forerunner" would still be a mere human and thus couldn't be given a name higher than that of the angels.)

[Athetotheist]

If the first part of 2 Sam. 7:14 applies to Jesus...then the second part ...must apply to Jesus as well.

Says WHO ?!

Says Jesus in John 10:35. If scripture cannot be broken, then two scriptural statements made about the same person must both apply to the same person, no matter who that person is.

[JehovahsWitness]

If the first part of 2 Sam. 7:14 applies to Jesus...then the second part ...must apply to Jesus as well.

Says WHO ?!

Says Jesus in John 10:35. If scripture cannot be broken, then two scriptural statements made about the same person must both apply to the same person, no matter who that person is.

Who says that applying a particular passage or even a part of a passage "nullifies" (breaks?) it? Seems to me you are attempting to apply some made up, circular ad hoc rule foreign to scriptural tradition itself. The writer of Hebrews completely ignored the second clause in the verse he quotes and Jesus himself applied parts of verses to individuals leaving the parts that didnt apply aside, so what biblical basis can you present for such a "one size fits all rule" ? (compare Mat 4:4 with Deut 8:3)



JW

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to
JehovahsWitness in post #22]

The writer of Hebrews completely ignored the second clause in the verse he quotes and Jesus himself applied parts of verses to individuals leaving the parts that didnt apply aside

Then their teaching wasn't consistent with Jewish scripture. You can't apply something scripture says about an individual and separate (nullify) it from something else that scripture says about the same individual.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to
JehovahsWitness in post #22]

The writer of Hebrews completely ignored the second clause in the verse he quotes and Jesus himself applied parts of verses to individuals leaving the parts that didnt apply aside

Then their teaching wasn't consistent with Jewish scripture.

That is completely untrue. One of the characterising features of the Hebrew bible is that its writers constantly quote earlier writings but if they did so in its entirety the bible would be a much bigger book.


The reality is, the Hebrew writers constantly take passages, expressions, laws and histories and use the parts the felt applicable to their audience. Joshua, for example quotes Moses law but leaves out vast amounts of it in his summaries, the Psalmist quotes the same verses under discussion in this thread, (2 Sam. 7:14) but again only partially compare Psams 2 verse 7. The Prophet Ezekiel paraphrases Psalms 2:8 but leaves out what we read in verse 7 (see Ez 21:27 ) even God Himself is recorded as summarizing most of the Torah condensing it into what amounts to few paragraphs in out present bibles. (Compare Joshua 24:3-13 with Gen 12:1 , Neh 9:7). In short what Jesus and the Christian writers did in the bible was not out of harmony with the Hebrew tradition.

You can't apply something scripture says about an individual and separate (nullify) it from something else that scripture says about the same individual.

Seperate doesn't mean "nullify" except perhaps in your imagination. Your "rule" is bogus; it is has no basis in either Christian hermeneutics or the Hebrew tradition (see above).





RELATED POSTS

Does every word in the bible have to apply to everyone?
viewtopic.php?p=1055876#p1055876

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[Tcg]

Joshua, for example quotes Moses law but leaves out vast amounts of it in his summaries, even God Himself, managed to condenses the Torah into a few paragraphs.

God edited the Torah? Can you present signed copies to support this claim? What does Elohim's autograph look like? Can you provide other examples with which to compare?


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to
JehovahsWitness in post #22]

The writer of Hebrews completely ignored the second clause in the verse he quotes and Jesus himself applied parts of verses to individuals leaving the parts that didnt apply aside

Then their teaching wasn't consistent with Jewish scripture.

That is completely untrue. One of the characterising features of the Hebrew bible is that its writers constantly quote earlier writings but if they did so in its entirety the bible would be a much bigger book.


The reality is, the Hebrew writers constantly take passages, expressions, laws and histories and use the parts the felt applicable to their audience. Joshua, for example quotes Moses law but leaves out vast amounts of it in his summaries, the Psalmist quotes the same verses under discussion in this thread, (2 Sam. 7:14) but again only partially compare Psams 2 verse 7. The Prophet Ezekiel paraphrases Psalms 2:8 but leaves out what we read in verse 7 (see Ez 21:27 ) even God Himself is recorded as summarizing most of the Torah condensing it into what amounts to few paragraphs in out present bibles. (Compare Joshua 24:3-13 with Gen 12:1 , Neh 9:7). In short what Jesus and the Christian writers did in the bible was not out of harmony with the Hebrew tradition.

You can't apply something scripture says about an individual and separate (nullify) it from something else that scripture says about the same individual.

Seperate doesn't mean "nullify" except perhaps in your imagination. Your "rule" is bogus; it is has no basis in either Christian hermeneutics or the Hebrew tradition (see above).





RELATED POSTS

Does every word in the bible have to apply to everyone?
viewtopic.php?p=1055876#p1055876

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

It isn't about quoting scripture "partially"; it's about applying a scriptural statement to someone to whom it isn't applied in scripture, and not applying a scriptural statement to someone to whom it is applied in scripture.

A similar problem arises when John 13:18 has Jesus apply Psalm 41:9 to Judas by chopping off the beginning of the verse and diving into the middle of it, saying, "He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me" when the verse actually says, "Yea, my own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, has lifted up his heel against me." John has Jesus say that this is a fulfillment of scripture, but a scripture about someone who is a trusted friend can't be fulfilled by someone who isn't. Both sides of the statement [being a trusted friend and lifting his heel against someone] have to apply to the same individual. The verse can't be quoted "partially".

[JehovahsWitness]

It isn't about quoting scripture "partially"; it's about applying a scriptural statement to someone to whom it isn't applied in scripture...

Well unless you are suggesting Hebrews is not part of scripture, 2 Samuel 7:14a is applied to Jesus in scripture.

.. and not applying a scriptural statement to someone to whom it is applied in scripture.

Where have you seen this done ? Certainly I see no scriptural statement that applies the second part of 2 Samuel 7:14 b to Jesus. What scripture that is applied to Jesus (or anyone else) have you seen dismissed?




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

It isn't about quoting scripture "partially" ...A similar problem arises when John 13:18 has Jesus apply Psalm 41:9 to Judas by chopping off the beginning of the verse and diving into the middle .... The verse can't be quoted "partially".

Are you not contradicting yourself here?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #27]

Well unless you are suggesting Hebrews is not part of scripture, 2 Samuel 7:14a is applied to Jesus in scripture.

7:14a isn't the whole thing. The "he" referred to in 7:14b is the same person.

[Athetotheist]

It isn't about quoting scripture "partially" ...A similar problem arises when John 13:18 has Jesus apply Psalm 41:9 to Judas by chopping off the beginning of the verse and diving into the middle .... The verse can't be quoted "partially".

Are you not contradicting yourself here?

No, I'm not. Jesus is contradicting Psalm 41:9.