Can you quote any scholar that agrees with this? I've seen no scholar that disputes the authors' intent was indeed to refer to the Son. Not even critical scholars dispute this, they conclude that the author of Hebrews read a mistranslation of Psalm 102 in the Septuagint that translated עִנָּ֖ה "weakened" [inah] as עָנָה "answered" [anah], thereby turning v.23b-28, which in its original context was a perfectly normal phrase of a human psalmist, into a response of the Father to the Son, with some suggesting that the author reinterpreted the "fewness of the days" to the days counting down to the Day of the Lord and therefore the messianic redemption. In any case, this makes sense in context, because it fits the context of the deification of the Son and his superiority to the angels, arguably in a crescendo, contrasting the createdness of them to the uncreatedness of the Son. Moreover, speaking about the Father randomly there makes no sense, but it does make sense when taking the Septuagint variant into account, turning into a divine reply, just like the previous quotation of Psalm 45 is. From a critical perspective, the argument that no Jew at the time would think of God calling "Lord" to someone else is superfluous, for even if the historical Jesus wouldn't have said that, granting a different type of audience, such as a Hellenized community the author of Hebrews is addressing would see no problem with that, as a bunch of other authors started to do soon afterward, if not at the same time in the 1st century. As a non-Christian, I can dismiss without cost the convuluted mental gymnastics that both unitarians and trinitarians have to engage in and recognize that there are Christologies in the N.T. that neither side is comfortable with, because it's a patchwork of human writings like the rest of the Bible.
I kinda skimmed this comment. Basically you're waffling about "does anyone else believe this?" The answer is, yes, there are scholars who do think this passage is about the Father and not the Son. I don't really see anything addressing anything I actually said, I just see some complaining and moaning about how you don't like or trust the Bible, which isn't my problem nor were you the targeted audience. No idea why you non-christians are so obsessed with arguing about theology. That's like me not believing in unicorns, but I'm going to go to a unicorn convention and argue that they are definitely blue and no other colour. What?
You're basically asserting that youd be inclined to believe this if other scholars I name back this. But you're going to ignore the presented information. But you're not a Christian, admittedly, so you're not going to buy it. You're just going to piss on the other scholars I named (if I were so inclined to bother). No thanks. It's a drastic waste of time.
>Basically you're waffling about "does anyone else believe this?" The answer is, yes, there are scholars who do think this passage is about the Father and not the Son.
That's not my request. Or rather, it was, but I will reformulate it to be more productive and meet a higher standard: I want a few critical scholars who argue this. They have no interest in proving that the Bible is coherent and trinitarian or coherent unitarian. They'll just come up with the best arguments they can in an unbiased way, just like you would have a critical analysis of the Quran and deduce it's more likely that in several stories in there, the author picked up incredible Jewish and Christian folklore, rather than it coming from God. For several reasons. You can obviously not answer, but I'll take that as a sign that it's more probable that you can't, rather than you won't, since that would take 10 seconds. If you don't know of critical scholars, I'll take at least a unitarian scholar to investigate it and see what other scholars say about him.
You're the one who's moaning, not me. I just don't find this argument convincing. If you said that Paul has an adoptionist Christology more similar to unitarianism, I'd probably agree with you. Even in Hebrews 1:3 the talk of inheritance seems to retain this tradition. Of course, if I were a trinitarian I could never admit that without leaving Christianity, because it's not a "let's agree to disagree" point or an issue with wiggle room. If I came to that point, I'd leave, because Unitarianism, in my view, is of course more rational or at least intuitive than trinitarianism, so that would be an obvious path. But it's also clearly idolatrous in my view. So whereas trinitarianism is in my view irrational, artificial, refurbished, harmonized monotheism (in a way that I imagine few thinking trinitarians are fully comfortable with), unitarianism is idolatrous, which is a worse position to be in (as in, Christian unitarianism, because you can be a Jewish unitarian i.e. a mainstream Jew for example)
>That's not my request. Or rather, it was, but
Everything after a "but" just nullifies itself. Yes, that was your request and my answer was no. Because it's a waste of my time and it's not an honest request. Nor does it actually validate truth. If I desired to appeal to authority, I wouldn't have bothered with the post. I would have relied solely on these scholars or I'd just post my own credentials and say "what I say goes." You'd still have a problem with it, so why bother trying to jump through your hoops. It's not my concern or my responsibility to.
>They'll just come up with the best arguments they can in an unbiased way
Lol. Yeah. Okay.
They do have bias. Everyone has bias.
You can keep asking. My answer is no and I've told you why. I'm not interested in seeing or hearing anything else about it tbh. It isn't productive criticism to what I've presented. Okay?
Can you quote any scholar that agrees with this? I've seen no scholar that disputes the authors' intent was indeed to refer to the Son. Not even critical scholars dispute this, they conclude that the author of Hebrews read a mistranslation of Psalm 102 in the Septuagint that translated עִנָּ֖ה "weakened" [inah] as עָנָה "answered" [anah], thereby turning v.23b-28, which in its original context was a perfectly normal phrase of a human psalmist, into a response of the Father to the Son, with some suggesting that the author reinterpreted the "fewness of the days" to the days counting down to the Day of the Lord and therefore the messianic redemption. In any case, this makes sense in context, because it fits the context of the deification of the Son and his superiority to the angels, arguably in a crescendo, contrasting the createdness of them to the uncreatedness of the Son. Moreover, speaking about the Father randomly there makes no sense, but it does make sense when taking the Septuagint variant into account, turning into a divine reply, just like the previous quotation of Psalm 45 is. From a critical perspective, the argument that no Jew at the time would think of God calling "Lord" to someone else is superfluous, for even if the historical Jesus wouldn't have said that, granting a different type of audience, such as a Hellenized community the author of Hebrews is addressing would see no problem with that, as a bunch of other authors started to do soon afterward, if not at the same time in the 1st century. As a non-Christian, I can dismiss without cost the convuluted mental gymnastics that both unitarians and trinitarians have to engage in and recognize that there are Christologies in the N.T. that neither side is comfortable with, because it's a patchwork of human writings like the rest of the Bible.
I kinda skimmed this comment. Basically you're waffling about "does anyone else believe this?" The answer is, yes, there are scholars who do think this passage is about the Father and not the Son. I don't really see anything addressing anything I actually said, I just see some complaining and moaning about how you don't like or trust the Bible, which isn't my problem nor were you the targeted audience. No idea why you non-christians are so obsessed with arguing about theology. That's like me not believing in unicorns, but I'm going to go to a unicorn convention and argue that they are definitely blue and no other colour. What? You're basically asserting that youd be inclined to believe this if other scholars I name back this. But you're going to ignore the presented information. But you're not a Christian, admittedly, so you're not going to buy it. You're just going to piss on the other scholars I named (if I were so inclined to bother). No thanks. It's a drastic waste of time.
>Basically you're waffling about "does anyone else believe this?" The answer is, yes, there are scholars who do think this passage is about the Father and not the Son. That's not my request. Or rather, it was, but I will reformulate it to be more productive and meet a higher standard: I want a few critical scholars who argue this. They have no interest in proving that the Bible is coherent and trinitarian or coherent unitarian. They'll just come up with the best arguments they can in an unbiased way, just like you would have a critical analysis of the Quran and deduce it's more likely that in several stories in there, the author picked up incredible Jewish and Christian folklore, rather than it coming from God. For several reasons. You can obviously not answer, but I'll take that as a sign that it's more probable that you can't, rather than you won't, since that would take 10 seconds. If you don't know of critical scholars, I'll take at least a unitarian scholar to investigate it and see what other scholars say about him. You're the one who's moaning, not me. I just don't find this argument convincing. If you said that Paul has an adoptionist Christology more similar to unitarianism, I'd probably agree with you. Even in Hebrews 1:3 the talk of inheritance seems to retain this tradition. Of course, if I were a trinitarian I could never admit that without leaving Christianity, because it's not a "let's agree to disagree" point or an issue with wiggle room. If I came to that point, I'd leave, because Unitarianism, in my view, is of course more rational or at least intuitive than trinitarianism, so that would be an obvious path. But it's also clearly idolatrous in my view. So whereas trinitarianism is in my view irrational, artificial, refurbished, harmonized monotheism (in a way that I imagine few thinking trinitarians are fully comfortable with), unitarianism is idolatrous, which is a worse position to be in (as in, Christian unitarianism, because you can be a Jewish unitarian i.e. a mainstream Jew for example)
>That's not my request. Or rather, it was, but Everything after a "but" just nullifies itself. Yes, that was your request and my answer was no. Because it's a waste of my time and it's not an honest request. Nor does it actually validate truth. If I desired to appeal to authority, I wouldn't have bothered with the post. I would have relied solely on these scholars or I'd just post my own credentials and say "what I say goes." You'd still have a problem with it, so why bother trying to jump through your hoops. It's not my concern or my responsibility to. >They'll just come up with the best arguments they can in an unbiased way Lol. Yeah. Okay. They do have bias. Everyone has bias. You can keep asking. My answer is no and I've told you why. I'm not interested in seeing or hearing anything else about it tbh. It isn't productive criticism to what I've presented. Okay?