Data on John 1:1

[Johann]

LOL

You don't believe the word of God

And you are not smart

“Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’” (Numbers 22:28)

In Hebrew, the phrase for "opened the mouth of the donkey" is וַיִּפְתַּח יְהוָה אֶת־פִּי הָאָתוֹן (Vayyiftach YHWH et-pi ha'aton), which explicitly credits God with enabling the donkey to speak. The Hebrew term here for "speak" or "said" is וַתֹּאמֶר (vatomer), from the root א־מ־ר (amar), meaning “to say” or “to speak.”

This is a standard verb for speech in the Hebrew Bible, commonly used to indicate conversation between people, but here applied to the donkey’s communication.

The significance of the donkey’s speech in this account emphasizes God’s intervention in Balaam's path, signaling divine warning and redirecting him away from harm. The donkey’s speech wasn’t intended to imply animals normally possess speech, but rather to illustrate the power of God working through unusual means to communicate His will and to get Balaam’s attention.

Far from being a "fairy-tale" style embellishment, the talking donkey is a theologically profound element that reinforces God’s sovereignty and capacity to use all creation to fulfill His purposes.

J.

 

[TomL]

“Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’” (Numbers 22:28)

In Hebrew, the phrase for "opened the mouth of the donkey" is וַיִּפְתַּח יְהוָה אֶת־פִּי הָאָתוֹן (Vayyiftach YHWH et-pi ha'aton), which explicitly credits God with enabling the donkey to speak. The Hebrew term here for "speak" or "said" is וַתֹּאמֶר (vatomer), from the root א־מ־ר (amar), meaning “to say” or “to speak.”

This is a standard verb for speech in the Hebrew Bible, commonly used to indicate conversation between people, but here applied to the donkey’s communication.

The significance of the donkey’s speech in this account emphasizes God’s intervention in Balaam's path, signaling divine warning and redirecting him away from harm. The donkey’s speech wasn’t intended to imply animals normally possess speech, but rather to illustrate the power of God working through unusual means to communicate His will and to get Balaam’s attention.

Far from being a "fairy-tale" style embellishment, the talking donkey is a theologically profound element that reinforces God’s sovereignty and capacity to use all creation to fulfill His purposes.

J.

Yes and thus the Unitarian is found to be a Bible denier

 

[Behold]

Data on Jn 1;1


"The Word was God"

"the Word was manifested in the flesh, and dwelt among us"

"God was manifested in the Flesh"

and , in John 1:10, John teaches that Jesus "made the world".

 

[Johann]

Yes and thus the Unitarian is found to be a Bible denier

I'm more interested in having an edifying dialogue with others. If anyone disagrees with me, that's perfectly fine-different perspectives can help us all grow and be encouraged in our faith.

J.

 

[TomL]

I'm more interested in having an edifying dialogue with others. If anyone disagrees with me, that's perfectly fine-different perspectives can help us all grow and be encouraged in our faith.

J.

But bald denial is not edifying

 

[Johann]

But bald denial is not edifying

Here's a thought for you: I don't believe we have our theology completely figured out. In the body of Christ Jesus, there are many members, and through the Ruach, we can all learn from one another. There are no lone rangers in this faith. If someone is firmly set in their disagreement, it's often best to let it go and avoid confrontation.

J.

 

[TomL]

Here's a thought for you: I don't believe we have our theology completely figured out. In the body of Christ Jesus, there are many members, and through the Ruach, we can all learn from one another. There are no lone rangers in this faith. If someone is firmly set in their disagreement, it's often best to let it go and avoid confrontation.

J.

I would agree with you that we might not have all our theology all figured out but bald and biased denial of texts are not edifying and when it is seen over and over then the source of it can only be considered suspect

 

[Peterlag]

View attachment 1029


In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.


Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).
The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.


With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.


And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Robertson.

Debunked, especially when you consult the morphology and syntax.

J.

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[mikesw]

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

One reason Christ's deity was not stated more clearly is that the Pharisees would have a clearer statement that they would treat as blasphemy. The other instances that are recorded would require the Pharisees to explain how his words were blasphemous (if Christ had not been of the Godhead). That would bring up the verses in scripture that pointed to his divinity in the Godhead and make it worse for the Pharisees who confessed these passages.
The other reason for no clear verse is that we come to God by faith. God uses these aspects of the Godhead and Trinity to weed out those who are not of faith.

 

[Peterlag]

One reason Christ's deity was not stated more clearly is that the Pharisees would have a clearer statement that they would treat as blasphemy. The other instances that are recorded would require the Pharisees to explain how his words were blasphemous (if Christ had not been of the Godhead). That would bring up the verses in scripture that pointed to his divinity in the Godhead and make it worse for the Pharisees who confessed these passages.
The other reason for no clear verse is that we come to God by faith. God uses these aspects of the Godhead and Trinity to weed out those who are not of faith.

What you just said above is taught and explained where in Scripture?

 

[Johann]

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

I take it you are not familiar with the morphology and syntax of the text then @Peterlag? If you did you wouldn't have asked me this re the Triune Godhead-right?

Many skeptics say there is no mention of a multi-peronsal God in the Old Testament. However, this video contends that idea and offers evidence that there is.

What is the Trinity?
• What is the Trinity?

The Trinity in the New Testament:
• The Trinity in the New Testament

Refuting Objections to the Trinity:
• Refuting Objections to the Trinity (P...
• Refuting Objections to the Trinity (P...

Logical Explanation of the Trinity:
• Video
• Video

Dr Michael Brown: Trinity in Old Testament:
• Video

Debate on Trinity in Old Testament:
• Sam Shamoun vs. Farhan Qureshi: "Is t...

Bible Contradictions refuted:

Loading...

kingdavid8.com

More evidence for the Trinity in the Old Testament:

YHWH:

Loading…

www.hebrew4christians.net

Introduction and Deuteronomy 6:4

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

The Angel of YHWH

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

The Angel of YHWH as Distinct from YHWH God

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Interaction with the Angel

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Seeing God's Face

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Establishing Past Existence:

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

The Spirit of YHWH

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Ancient Jewish Recognition of Trinitarian Facts

http://www.biblestudying.net/trinity9...

Addendum 1 & 2

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Addendum 3

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whiners

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."


In the beginning 1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 2 and the Word was fully God. 3

NET © Notes
1 sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

2 tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

3 tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.”

From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father).

However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too.

This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father.

The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

NETBible: John 1:1

classic.net.bible.org

Too many scriptural data re the Triune Godhead brother.

J.

 

[mikesw]

What you just said above is taught and explained where in Scripture?

This is mostly just stuff that Christians understand from scripture due to having the mind of Christ.

 

[mikesw]

I take it you are not familiar with the morphology and syntax of the text then @Peterlag? If you did you wouldn't have asked me this re the Triune Godhead-right?

The Trinity in the Old Testament​

youtube.com/watch?v=]BNt5NKSse0Y

Too many scriptural data re the Triune Godhead brother.

J.

i noted the visual of three gods in the first minute and a half into the video. It brought to mind how Satan would deceive some societies that there were three gods so that people would be distracted from the truth -- of three persons of the single God.

 

[Johann]

i noted the visual of three gods in the first minute and a half into the video. It brought to mind how Satan would deceive some societies that there were three gods so that people would be distracted from the truth -- of three persons of the single God.

You noted the "three visuals" and I guess you stopped listening-right @mikesw?

J.

 

[mikesw]

You noted the "three visuals" and I guess you stopped listening-right @mikesw?

J.

I stopped momentarily since I thought the idea I had was interesting. The rest of the video had a great argument.

 

[TomL]

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

There is. You just refuse to believe it

John 1:1–14 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:15–45 (KJV 1900) — 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. 24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. 35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. 43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. 44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

 

[Johann]

I stopped momentarily since I thought the idea I had was interesting. The rest of the video had a great argument.

YHVH
The Angel of YHVH
The Ruach of YHVH

Memra Chart (from Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20.)

Genesis 1:27

God created man.



The Word of the Lord created man. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)

Genesis 6:6-7

And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth.

And it repented the Lord through his Word that he made man on the earth.

Genesis 9:12

And God said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between me and you.”

And the Lord said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between my Word and you.”

Genesis 15:6

And Abraham believed in the Lord.

And Abraham believed in the Word of the Lord.

Genesis 20:3

And God came to Abimelech.

And the Word from before the Lord came to Abimelech.

Genesis 31:49

May the Lord keep watch between you and me.

May the Word of the Lord keep watch between you and me.

Exodus 14:31

And they believed in the Lord.

And they believed in the Word of the Lord.

Exodux 20:1

And the Lord spoke all these words.

And the Word of the Lord spoke all these words.

Exodux 25:22

And I will meet with you there.

And I will appoint my Word for you there. 31

Leviticus 26:9

And I will turn to you.

And I will turn through my Word to do good to you.

Numbers 10:35

Rise up, O Lord!

Rise up, O Word of the Lord!

Numbers 10:36

Return, O Lord!

Return, O Word of the Lord!

Numbers 11:23

Is the hand of the Lord shortened?

Is the Word of the Lord detained?

Numbers 14:35

I the Lord have spoken.

I the Lord decreed through my Word.

Deuteronomy 1:30

The Lord your God who goes before you, he himself will fight for you.

The Lord your God who leads before you, his Word will fight for you.

Deuteronomy 18:19

I myself will require it of him.

My Word will require it of him.

Deuteronomy 31:3

The Lord your God will pass before you.

The Lord your God, his Word will pass before you.

Joshua 1:5

As I was with Moses I will be with you.

As my Word was in support of Moses, so my Word will be in your support.

Judges 11:10

The Lord will be witness between us.

The Word of the Lord will be witness between us.

Isaiah 45:17

Israel will be saved by the Lord.

Israel will be saved by the Word of the Lord.

Commenting on this chart, Dr. Brown emphasizes the significance of the fact that the Targum so readily recognized the Word of YHWH as a distinct figure.

“Now, I want you to look carefully at the following verses. The translation of the Hebrew text is followed immediately by the translation of the Aramaic Targum. Keepin in mind when reading that these Targums were the official translations used in the synagogues. Therefore, the Targums took on great significance in the religious life of the people, just as English versions of the Bible take on great significance for English speakers today. Here are several examples:…” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20

Furthermore, Dr. Brown follows this chart with another prominent example in which the Jewish Targum identified the figure known as the Word of YHWH interchangeably with YHWH God.

“As if these examples aren’t enough (and there are many more), just consider Genesis 28:20-21, Jacob’s vow. In Hebrew, it reads, ‘If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s house, then the Lord will be my God.’ The Targum says, ‘If the Word of the Lord will be with me…then the Word of the Lord will be my God.’ The Word of the Lord will be Jacob’s God! And this was read in the synagogues for decades, if not centuries. Week in and week out, the people heard about this walking, talking, creating, saving, delivering Word, this Word who was Jacob’s God.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 21

Consequently, it is very clear that the identification of a figure known as the Word of God, who is both distinct from and yet himself YHWH God, is not a unique or new idea of the New Testament or Christianity. This defining component of Trinitarianism is present within the Old Testament and ancient Judaism.

Adding a footnote to this chart, Dr. Brown explains that the ancient Jews understood the figure known as the Memra or Word of YHWH in terms of the concept that YHWH God was operating in a more personal or personified and interactive form.

“Footnote 31: CF. Yeyn HaTob, 1:351, which simply notes here (as it does elsewhere in similar contexts), “to remove personification [hagshamah],” i.e., of the Deity; cf. the discussion of Ezra Zion Melammed, Bible Commentators (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), cited below, n. 42.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 269

Given that Trinitarianism recognizes all three Persons of the Godhead as personal, this Jewish explanation is not identical to Trinitarianism. However, it comes very close. So close, in fact, that there remains little basis for rejecting the Trinitarian explanation. And more importantly, it acknowledges the basic fact of our assertion that the angel of YHWH was YHWH God in a humbler, visiting form. As we have said, the purpose of this humbler guise of an angel or man was because in this form YHWH could better interact with men, particularly since no man could see his fully glorified from and live.

As a result of these Jewish reflections, it is clear that ancient and modern non-Christian Jews recognize the that Old Testament identifies the angel of YHWH (or “the Word of YHWH”) not as an angel but as YHWH and at the same time as distinct from a simultaneously existing figure also known as YHWH. Consequently, these doctrines cannot be regarded as a New Testament or Christian invention. Neither is recognizing the figure known as the Spirit of YHWH as a similar, simultaneously existing figure of YHWH a Christian invention. The Old Testament and rabbinical Jews recognized these facts also.

biblestudying.net

J.

 

[mikesw]

YHVH
The Angel of YHVH
The Ruach of YHVH

Memra Chart (from Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20.)

Genesis 1:27

God created man.



The Word of the Lord created man. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)

Genesis 6:6-7

And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth.

And it repented the Lord through his Word that he made man on the earth.

Genesis 9:12

And God said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between me and you.”

And the Lord said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between my Word and you.”

Genesis 15:6

And Abraham believed in the Lord.

And Abraham believed in the Word of the Lord.

Genesis 20:3

And God came to Abimelech.

And the Word from before the Lord came to Abimelech.

Genesis 31:49

May the Lord keep watch between you and me.

May the Word of the Lord keep watch between you and me.

Exodus 14:31

And they believed in the Lord.

And they believed in the Word of the Lord.

Exodux 20:1

And the Lord spoke all these words.

And the Word of the Lord spoke all these words.

Exodux 25:22

And I will meet with you there.

And I will appoint my Word for you there. 31

Leviticus 26:9

And I will turn to you.

And I will turn through my Word to do good to you.

Numbers 10:35

Rise up, O Lord!

Rise up, O Word of the Lord!

Numbers 10:36

Return, O Lord!

Return, O Word of the Lord!

Numbers 11:23

Is the hand of the Lord shortened?

Is the Word of the Lord detained?

Numbers 14:35

I the Lord have spoken.

I the Lord decreed through my Word.

Deuteronomy 1:30

The Lord your God who goes before you, he himself will fight for you.

The Lord your God who leads before you, his Word will fight for you.

Deuteronomy 18:19
...

As a result of these Jewish reflections, it is clear that ancient and modern non-Christian Jews recognize the that Old Testament identifies the angel of YHWH (or “the Word of YHWH”) not as an angel but as YHWH and at the same time as distinct from a simultaneously existing figure also known as YHWH. Consequently, these doctrines cannot be regarded as a New Testament or Christian invention. Neither is recognizing the figure known as the Spirit of YHWH as a similar, simultaneously existing figure of YHWH a Christian invention. The Old Testament and rabbinical Jews recognized these facts also.


J.

The recent sharing about the Word of the Lord in the OT was something new to my thinking. I guess my earlier thinking was that this was more of a vision or they just recognized the idea came from God. It is interesting that the connection occurs with Logos.

 

[Johann]

The recent sharing about the Word of the Lord in the OT was something new to my thinking. I guess my earlier thinking was that this was more of a vision or they just recognized the idea came from God. It is interesting that the connection occurs with Logos.

These are not visions but rather physical manifestations, which I appreciate you’re open to reconsidering-this shows a willingness to learn and grow.

I would approach the explanation of the Triune Godhead not as three separate Persons but in a unified sense. My perspective is this:

YHVH as the eternal, self-existent One
The Angel of YHVH, distinct in representation and often accompanied by the Definite Article, appearing in human form and speaking with divine authority
The Ruach (Spirit) of YHVH, active and present, manifesting God’s power and presence.

J.

 

[Peterlag]

I take it you are not familiar with the morphology and syntax of the text then @Peterlag? If you did you wouldn't have asked me this re the Triune Godhead-right?

Many skeptics say there is no mention of a multi-peronsal God in the Old Testament. However, this video contends that idea and offers evidence that there is.

What is the Trinity?
• What is the Trinity?

The Trinity in the New Testament:
• The Trinity in the New Testament

Refuting Objections to the Trinity:
• Refuting Objections to the Trinity (P...
• Refuting Objections to the Trinity (P...

Logical Explanation of the Trinity:
• Video
• Video

Dr Michael Brown: Trinity in Old Testament:
• Video

Debate on Trinity in Old Testament:
• Sam Shamoun vs. Farhan Qureshi: "Is t...

Bible Contradictions refuted:

Loading...

kingdavid8.com

More evidence for the Trinity in the Old Testament:

YHWH:

Loading…

www.hebrew4christians.net

Introduction and Deuteronomy 6:4

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

The Angel of YHWH

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

The Angel of YHWH as Distinct from YHWH God

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Interaction with the Angel

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Seeing God's Face

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Establishing Past Existence:

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

The Spirit of YHWH

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Ancient Jewish Recognition of Trinitarian Facts

http://www.biblestudying.net/trinity9...

Addendum 1 & 2

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

Addendum 3

Loading…

www.biblestudying.net

*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whiners

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."


In the beginning 1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 2 and the Word was fully God. 3

NET © Notes
1 sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

2 tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

3 tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.”

From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father).

However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too.

This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father.

The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

NETBible: John 1:1

classic.net.bible.org

Too many scriptural data re the Triune Godhead brother.

J.

There are not too many Scriptures teaching the trinity. Not even 1 record where a paragraph or a chapter or two has taught it. Every verse that you quote from bits and pieces that are scattered all over the Bible can be understood in the context they are written in or how the word was used in their culture or understanding the bad translations and there are many of them since the Catholics have been translating biblical data for a very long time. I could comment on 1 verse at a time if you would enjoy posting 1. I cannot comment on 15.