Equality between the Father and Son

[placebofactor]

Did the Father have the power to raise or elevate his Son Jesus to the same rank as himself? Let us call the highest rank in heaven "the rank of God."

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

[placebofactor]

Did the Father have the power to raise or elevate his Son Jesus to the same rank as himself? Let us call the highest rank in heaven "the rank of God."

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

That is not so. God never called the Son "God." The Hebrew (Psalm 45) from which the writer of Hebrews rendered Heb.1:8 did not say anything about God calling the Son "O God." The Hebrew language (in the Psalms) says, "Your divine throne is everlasting." The writer of Hebrews would undoubtedly copy down carefully what the verse said in Hebrew. The translation "God is your throne" is more accurate than "your throne O God." All power comes to the Son from the Father.

Verse 10 does not find the Father calling the Son "Jehovah." It says, "You at the beginning O Lord..." It does not have "Lord" in all capital letters which would indicate it was Jehovah that was being referenced. It is just "Lord," which Jesus was called many times in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament). A very weak defense for the Jesus-is-God theory.

In fact, verse 9 shows unequivocally that the Son has a God. It says, "God, your God anointed you with the oil of exultation..."

Onewithhim: I would like you to look at Psalms 45:11 in your N.W.T. 1971 edition. "And the king will long for your prettiness, for he is your lord, so bow down to him."

Okay, now for the Watchtower to belittle the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, in this verse, they changed Lord to all lowercase lord, corruption number one.

Corruption number 2, Concerning the Lord Jesus, the Watchtower changed the phrase "they beauty" for "your prettiness." Prettiness is not a Hebrew word. In my book, "prettiness" is a feminine term. Is the Watchtower comparing Jesus' beauty to a woman who is "pretty?" If that's the best the Watchtower's corrupt translators can do, they need new translators.

Corruption number 3, the Watchtower changed the phrase "worship thou him (Jesus)" to "bow down to him." In the Watchtowers' corrupt dictionary, to bow is not to worship, another of their sticks in the eye of the Lord Jesus.

The N.W.T. footnote concerning Psalms 6. It tells us this translation came from Kautzsch-Cowley, 1949. The verse can be translated either, "Or, "Your throne is of God", or "Your throne of God is,”

So, I went to A.I., and as usual, the Watchtower only gives one side of the story and rarely reveals the whole truth. Here’s what the Watchtower said about “Kautzsch-Cowley.” "In the Kautzsch-Cowley edition of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Psalm 45:6 is discussed in detail under the section on syntax and nominal clauses. While the grammar itself is not a Bible translation, it analyzes the Hebrew text and offers interpretive renderings based on grammatical structure. Hebrew Text of Psalm 45:6, כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מֵישָׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ

A.I. wrote, Kautzsch-Cowley’s Grammatical Interpretation: In §141g of the grammar, they treat this verse as an example of a nominal clause where Elohim ("God") functions as the subject. They translate it as: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”

This aligns with the traditional rendering found in the King James Version and is supported by the syntax of the Hebrew, where Elohim is in apposition to the vocative “Thy throne”. However, they also note that the Hebrew allows for alternative renderings, such as:
1. “Your throne is God forever and ever”
2. “Your throne is a throne of God forever and ever” These alternatives arise from the ambiguity in whether Elohim is vocative (“O God”) or predicate (“is God”).

Theological Implications
This verse is famously quoted in Hebrews 1:8 to support the divinity of Christ. Trinitarian interpreters often prefer the vocative reading (“Thy throne, O God”), while others argue for a royal psalm addressed to a human king whose throne is divinely sanctioned.

Then I responded to A.I's comments: "Well there cannot be four renderings of one verse, for God is not the author of confusion.

So, I asked A.I. the following question. “Which of the four is the correct rendering. We cannot have four different versions of the same verse. Are there any other verse or verses that cements one of them as the foundation verse?

A.I. response: You're absolutely right to press for clarity. Psalm 45:6 is a theological hinge; its rendering shapes whether the verse is a direct address to God or a description of a divinely appointed king. Let's walk through the options and then test them against Scripture.

The Four Renderings of Psalm 45:6, Hebrew: כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מֵישָׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ
1. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"
Vocative: The king is addressed as Elohim.
Supports a messianic reading—used in Hebrews 1:8.

2. "Thy throne is God forever and ever"
Predicate: Elohim is the subject of the throne.
Grammatically possible but theologically awkward.

3. "Thy throne is a throne of God forever and ever"
Genitive construction: Elohim modifies throne.
Emphasizes divine sanction, not divinity of the king.

4. "God is your throne forever and ever"

Metaphorical: God as the source or support of kingship.
Rare usage; lacks parallel support.

So, which of the four is correct?
The vocative rendering, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever”—is the most grammatically natural and theologically supported. Why?

Syntax: The parallelism between “Thy throne, O God” and “a scepter of uprightness” favors a direct address.

Masoretic accents: The zaqeph qaton under Elohim separates it from the preceding word, supporting vocative use.

Context: The psalm is royal and celebratory, likely messianic in tone.

Hebrews 1:8 as the Anchor Verse: Hebrews 1:8, K.J.V. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.”

This is a direct quotation of Psalm 45:6–7 from the Septuagint (LXX), which clearly renders it vocatively: ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεός (“Your throne, O God”).
The author of Hebrews applies this to Jesus, affirming His divinity.

The LXX translators—working centuries before Christ—understood the Hebrew as a direct address to God.
This usage in the New Testament canonizes the vocative reading as Christologically foundational.

Other supporting verses that reinforce this, consider:
Isaiah 9:6, “His name shall be called… Mighty God” (אֵל גִּבּוֹר)
Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said unto my Lord…” (Messianic enthronement)
Daniel 7:13–14, The Son of Man receives an everlasting dominion

These all support a divine figure enthroned eternally, aligning with the vocative reading of Psalm 45:6.
Conclusion: The correct rendering—anchored by Hebrews 1:8 and the Septuagint is: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
This affirms the divinity of the enthroned figure and harmonizes with messianic prophecy. The other renderings, while grammatically possible, lack canonical support and theological coherence.

[Revelations won]

To all respondents,

As I stated in my Post # 140 on August 10, 2025 quoted below it is obvious that there will never be a total equality between the "Most High", who is our "heavenly Father"., Christ for all eternity will bring further glory to the Father. Christ will be wxaltedby the Father to sit in his throne as stated in the Bible. The Father will always be further Exalted to a greater exaltation.

There is certainly perfect unity of plan and purpose in their divine plan, but this by no means implies Equality.

Re: Equality between the Father and Son
Post #124
Post by Revelations won » Sun Aug 10, 2025 6:23 am

To all respondents,

The Father and the Son are certainly one in doctrine, unity and purpose. We could all make and present ideas ad infinitum with un-numbered private interpretation.

It is obvious that the Son has brought glory to his Father before he condescended to minister among man in the flesh.

It is also obvious that he brought further glory to the Father while in the flesh.

It is also obvious that he received glory from the Father prior to his mission in the flesh.

It is also obvious that he has also received more glory after his resurrection.

It is also obvious that he sought to do all the will of the Father before his mortal birth.

It is also self evident that he in his youth as a young boy, that he also sought to obey and be about his Fathers business assigned to him.

It is also obvious that he sought to do the will of the Father in his adult mission.

It is also obvious that no mortal man could teach him anything regarding the ATONEMENT.

It is also obvious that according to the four gospels that God our eternal Father did no send an angel to counsel and teach him details regarding the magnitude of what he would suffer in this process.

It should be observed that the angel referred to was none other than the Most High even God his Father for he alone was the only one with the capacity to have empathy and full understanding regarding the infinite agony which his dear Son was also about to experience for he himself had at some time eons of time ago what his dear Son was about to experience in Gesthemane.

It is obvious that in this sacred and solemn defining moment before his infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice that the one and only person he communed with was the most high God, his and our Father in heaven.

Perhaps the most clear and powerful testimony and witness regarding his position with his Father comes in his own most powerful declaration that "I of my self can do nothing, for I only do the works that I have seen my FATHER DO"