The Trinity made easy

[civic]

BTW, I am not challenging that no one saw God. So, you do not have to keep trying to prove it.

They did see and hear God in the OT but it was not the Father as Jesus testified- it was the Eternal Son.

 

[Johann]

Yes its a Theophany/Christophany which is the Son who is God and not the Father who appeared to them in the O.T. called God/YHWH.

Might shock you but the Malack is YHVH-read my post again-and I always share the source-for the edification of other members.
Again-some do word studies-nothing wrong with that-but how many are on a journey doing studies on the syntax and grammars in both Hebrew and Greek?

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 The Beginning
In [the]G1722 Prep En Ἐν N1 beginningG746 N-DFS archē ἀρχῇ wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word,G3056 N-NMS Logos, Λόγος, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ WordG3056 N-NMS Logos Λόγος wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν withG4314 Prep pros πρὸς -G3588 Art-AMS ton τὸν God,G2316 N-AMS Theon, Θεόν, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ GodG2316 N-NMS Theos Θεὸς wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word.G3056 N-NMS Logos. Λόγος.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten one from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

ἦν] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (Joh_1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col_1:15.
Meyer

(1) ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ἐν ἀρχῇ is here used relatively to creation, as in Gen_1:1 and Pro_8:23, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι; cf. 1Jn_1:1. Consequently even in the time of Theophylact it was argued that this clause only asserts that the Logos was older than Adam. But this is to overlook the ἦν.

The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was.

In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal. Cf. Col_1:18 (the article is absent because ἐν ἀρχῇ is virtually an adverbial expression).—ὁ λόγος.

The term Logos appears as early as Heraclitus to denote the principle which maintains order in the world (see passages in Ritter and Preller). Among the Stoics the word was similarly used, as the equivalent of the anima mundi (cf. Virgil, Æn., vi., 724). Marcus Aurelius (iv. 14–21) uses the term σπερματικὸς λόγος to express the generative principle or creative force in nature. The term was familiar to Greek philosophy.

In Hebrew thought there was felt the need for some term to express God, not in His absolute being, but in His manifestation and active connection with the world. In the O. T. “the Angel of the Lord” and “the wisdom of God” are used for this purpose.

In the Apocryphal books and the Targums “the word of Jehovah” is similarly used.

These two streams of thought were combined by Philo, who has a fairly full and explicit doctrine of the Logos as the expression of God or God in expression (see Drummond’s Philo; Siegfried’s Philo; Reville, Doctrine du Logos; Bigg’s Bampton Lec.; Hatch’s Hibbert Lec.). The word being thus already in use and aiding thoughtful men in their efforts to conceive God’s connection with the world, John takes it and uses it to denote the Revealer of the incomprehensible and invisible God. Irrespective of all speculations which had gathered around the term, John now proceeds to make known the true nature of the Logos. (Cf. The Primal Will, or Universal Reason of the Babis; Sell’s Faith of Islam, 146.)

(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse.

It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12.

This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
EX-Gr.

We have so much information-and it goes unheeded.
Shalom brother.
J.

 

[civic]

Might shock you but the Malack is YHVH-read my post again-and I always share the source-for the edification of other members.
Again-some do word studies-nothing wrong with that-but how many are on a journey doing studies on the syntax and grammars in both Hebrew and Greek?

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 The Beginning
In [the]G1722 Prep En Ἐν N1 beginningG746 N-DFS archē ἀρχῇ wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word,G3056 N-NMS Logos, Λόγος, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ WordG3056 N-NMS Logos Λόγος wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν withG4314 Prep pros πρὸς -G3588 Art-AMS ton τὸν God,G2316 N-AMS Theon, Θεόν, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ GodG2316 N-NMS Theos Θεὸς wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word.G3056 N-NMS Logos. Λόγος.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten one from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

ἦν] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (Joh_1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col_1:15.
Meyer

(1) ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ἐν ἀρχῇ is here used relatively to creation, as in Gen_1:1 and Pro_8:23, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι; cf. 1Jn_1:1. Consequently even in the time of Theophylact it was argued that this clause only asserts that the Logos was older than Adam. But this is to overlook the ἦν.

The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was.

In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal. Cf. Col_1:18 (the article is absent because ἐν ἀρχῇ is virtually an adverbial expression).—ὁ λόγος.

The term Logos appears as early as Heraclitus to denote the principle which maintains order in the world (see passages in Ritter and Preller). Among the Stoics the word was similarly used, as the equivalent of the anima mundi (cf. Virgil, Æn., vi., 724). Marcus Aurelius (iv. 14–21) uses the term σπερματικὸς λόγος to express the generative principle or creative force in nature. The term was familiar to Greek philosophy.

In Hebrew thought there was felt the need for some term to express God, not in His absolute being, but in His manifestation and active connection with the world. In the O. T. “the Angel of the Lord” and “the wisdom of God” are used for this purpose.

In the Apocryphal books and the Targums “the word of Jehovah” is similarly used.

These two streams of thought were combined by Philo, who has a fairly full and explicit doctrine of the Logos as the expression of God or God in expression (see Drummond’s Philo; Siegfried’s Philo; Reville, Doctrine du Logos; Bigg’s Bampton Lec.; Hatch’s Hibbert Lec.). The word being thus already in use and aiding thoughtful men in their efforts to conceive God’s connection with the world, John takes it and uses it to denote the Revealer of the incomprehensible and invisible God. Irrespective of all speculations which had gathered around the term, John now proceeds to make known the true nature of the Logos. (Cf. The Primal Will, or Universal Reason of the Babis; Sell’s Faith of Islam, 146.)

(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse.

It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12.

This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
EX-Gr.

We have so much information-and it goes unheeded.
Shalom brother.
J.

I'm not disagreeing. Its not the Father is what I'm emphasizing. Since God is Plural it was the Pre Incarnate Son who appeared to men in the O.T, identified as YHWH and not the Father.

 

[Johann]

I'm not disagreeing. Its not the Father is what I'm emphasizing. Since God is Plural it was the Pre Incarnate Son who appeared to men in the O.T, identified as YHWH and not the Father.

Don't fret my brother-I know we are on the same page and admire your pathos for the cause of our Lord Christ Jesus.
J.

 

[Johann]

You are unable to differentiate between between the literal and the figurative.

Brother-don't assume-can you show me what an Imperfect is-3x-in John 1:1.
J.

 

[civic]

Don't fret my brother-I know we are on the same page and admire your pathos for the cause of our Lord Christ Jesus.
J.

you know me I don't sweat the small stuff so I'm not worried.

 

[Johann]

you know me I don't sweat the small stuff so I'm not worried.

I have read your thesis on atonement-and there is nothing more I can add-an excellent work, glory to God-and may I add, this is a very informative forum.
Johann.

 

[praise_yeshua]

lol a Christophany is the pre incarnate Son appearing to men in the O.T.

I took it as showing the Unity of God in Christ in the word Theophany. I might be wrong.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes. Like a mirror, he reflects that which is not him.

What is not him? We need more details here.

My turn to ask a question.

Have you ever wondered why there is always a pesky OF regarding Jesus’ relationship to God - servant, lamb, word, son - rather than ever IS God? What do you suppose it means?

You're making a "false" claim when you use the word "always". That is not true. Not even close.

Yes. Jesus is referenced as a servant. Like a man, you believe service makes someone "lesser" than the "person" being served. Just is carnal imaginations.

You're continually ignoring the reference to a "son". As a Father, in perfect unity, the son is an absolute mirror image of the Father.

 

[atpollard]

Might shock you but the Malack is YHVH-read my post again-and I always share the source-for the edification of other members.
Again-some do word studies-nothing wrong with that-but how many are on a journey doing studies on the syntax and grammars in both Hebrew and Greek?

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 The Beginning
In [the]G1722 Prep En Ἐν N1 beginningG746 N-DFS archē ἀρχῇ wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word,G3056 N-NMS Logos, Λόγος, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ WordG3056 N-NMS Logos Λόγος wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν withG4314 Prep pros πρὸς -G3588 Art-AMS ton τὸν God,G2316 N-AMS Theon, Θεόν, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ GodG2316 N-NMS Theos Θεὸς wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word.G3056 N-NMS Logos. Λόγος.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten one from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

ἦν] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (Joh_1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col_1:15.
Meyer

(1) ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ἐν ἀρχῇ is here used relatively to creation, as in Gen_1:1 and Pro_8:23, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι; cf. 1Jn_1:1. Consequently even in the time of Theophylact it was argued that this clause only asserts that the Logos was older than Adam. But this is to overlook the ἦν.

The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was.

In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal. Cf. Col_1:18 (the article is absent because ἐν ἀρχῇ is virtually an adverbial expression).—ὁ λόγος.

The term Logos appears as early as Heraclitus to denote the principle which maintains order in the world (see passages in Ritter and Preller). Among the Stoics the word was similarly used, as the equivalent of the anima mundi (cf. Virgil, Æn., vi., 724). Marcus Aurelius (iv. 14–21) uses the term σπερματικὸς λόγος to express the generative principle or creative force in nature. The term was familiar to Greek philosophy.

In Hebrew thought there was felt the need for some term to express God, not in His absolute being, but in His manifestation and active connection with the world. In the O. T. “the Angel of the Lord” and “the wisdom of God” are used for this purpose.

In the Apocryphal books and the Targums “the word of Jehovah” is similarly used.

These two streams of thought were combined by Philo, who has a fairly full and explicit doctrine of the Logos as the expression of God or God in expression (see Drummond’s Philo; Siegfried’s Philo; Reville, Doctrine du Logos; Bigg’s Bampton Lec.; Hatch’s Hibbert Lec.). The word being thus already in use and aiding thoughtful men in their efforts to conceive God’s connection with the world, John takes it and uses it to denote the Revealer of the incomprehensible and invisible God. Irrespective of all speculations which had gathered around the term, John now proceeds to make known the true nature of the Logos. (Cf. The Primal Will, or Universal Reason of the Babis; Sell’s Faith of Islam, 146.)

(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse.

It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12.

This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
EX-Gr.

We have so much information-and it goes unheeded.
Shalom brother.
J.

A little more work to follow than I typically enjoy ... but very informative.
(... but probably not in the category of "trinity made easy". )

 

[Wrangler]

I have proven-from Scriptures-the absurdity of your claims

Maybe to you. The proof is seen throughout Scripture that YHWH, our father, is the only true God. Jesus said do himself. Do you know better than Jesus?

Again-no need to take excerpts of my post-Jesus Christ preexisted with YHVH

I am full on Trinitarian

On that we are in complete agreement. How many true Gods are in the Bible again; 1 or 3?

 

[Wrangler]

What is not him? We need more details here.

The whole reason Scripture describes Jesus as the form or image or son or lamb or servant OF God is because that is how you know he IS NOT God.

Joe Biden OF America means he is an agent representing America. It is not to be taken to mean Joe IS America.

If Jesus were God, why does Scripture explicitly say he is the servant of God?

Hope this helps.

 

[Johann]

A little more work to follow than I typically enjoy ... but very informative.
(... but probably not in the category of "trinity made easy". )

Thanks for making time to read brother-no, it definitely is not in the category of "Trinity" made easy-but a careful study of the Scriptures and with so many sources available-we read and believe what stands written-no need to pontificate or philosophize.

I am much more forgiving to listen to the "other side of the coin" but not when it comes to the Deity of Jesus Christ our great God and Savior-Jesus Christ.

Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Act 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
Act 17:14 And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.

Shalom Achi
Johann.

 

[civic]

I have read your thesis on atonement-and there is nothing more I can add-an excellent work, glory to God-and may I add, this is a very informative forum.
Johann.

wow thanks you for your kind words and affirmation, that means allot my friend.

 

[Johann]

Maybe to you. The proof is seen throughout Scripture that YHWH, our father, is the only true God. Jesus said do himself. Do you know better than Jesus?

I am more than happy to enter into a debate with you-but not with unintelligent questions-veering off topic.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

"our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" Jesus is here unambiguously given the title of God!

The Caesars claimed similar titles (i.e., Ptolemy I). The terms "appearing" (which contextually relates to Christ's Second Coming) and "great" are never used of YHWH. Also, there is no ARTICLE with "savior." The syntax of Koine Greek supports this as a title for Jesus because there is only one ARTICLE with both NOUNS, thus linking them together (see NET Bible).

Jesus is divine (cf. John 1:1; 8:57-58; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; 2 Thess. 1:12; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1,11; 1 John 5:20). In the OT the Messiah was expected to be a divinely empowered person like the Judges. His deity surprised everyone.

-and from now on I will not reveal my sources and links-since this goes unheeded.

I will be forgiving toward you re the Trinity-but not when the Deity of Christ is under attack-the world over.
Shalom
Johann.

 

[Johann]

wow thanks you for your kind words and affirmation, that means allot my friend.

Some more material-from a Messianic Jewish perspective-a long read. Michael Brown.

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 2

I am continuing the response to some of the point that Yisroel Blumenthal has raised in his work Supplement to Contra Brown and I hope to ad...

answering-judaism.blogspot.com

@civic I have decided not to reveal my links and sources to all and sundry-since it goes unnoticed-only to those who ask, would that be OK?

Thanks brother.
Johann.

 

[civic]

Some more material-from a Messianic Jewish perspective-a long read. Michael Brown.

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 2

I am continuing the response to some of the point that Yisroel Blumenthal has raised in his work Supplement to Contra Brown and I hope to ad...

answering-judaism.blogspot.com

@civic I have decided not to reveal my links and sources to all and sundry-since it goes unnoticed-only to those who ask, would that be OK?

Thanks brother.
Johann.

Thats a question for @Administrator

 

[Johann]

Thats a question for @Administrator

Could you explain this to him?
The only source I will give credit to is Utley.
An aside-we have freedom of speech and the world seems to still be in darkness when it comes to the Scriptures.
Thanks.
J.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The whole reason Scripture describes Jesus as the form or image or son or lamb or servant OF God is because that is how you know he IS NOT God.

That is your claim absent evidence to establish that claim.

Joe Biden OF America means he is an agent representing America. It is not to be taken to mean Joe IS America.

That is rather simple rational that doesn't adequately represent the substance of Jesus Christ. Which is why I asked you about Jesus claiming to perfectly represent the Father.

Is Jesus really no more than "Joe Biden/America" to you? What about your future Messiah? Will that person be different?

If Jesus were God, why does Scripture explicitly say he is the servant of God?

Hope this helps.

He represented the Father among humanity. That doesn't mean that He was much more than just a servant. Servant is just part of the description.

 

[civic]

Could you explain this to him?
The only source I will give credit to is Utley.
An aside-we have freedom of speech and the world seems to still be in darkness when it comes to the Scriptures.
Thanks.
J.

I tagged him so he will read this I guarentee it.