The Trinity study ,plural references to God in the Old Testament:Plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs

[Runningman]

Jesus is shown saying it. John 1 shares it. So I have no understanding what your obstacles are to understanding scripture. If you want to say the Word did nothing during the process of creation, you come to a rather odd interpretation.

And after that he wasn't there where you claim he was supposed to be. In the Bible, no one pre-exists their actual life, Jesus included. People can pre-exist in the sense of being pre-destined or pre-known by God, but not in the literal sense you are saying.

 

[synergy]

You did: "That clearly describes the nature of whom you worship."

I keep running into unitarians who possess a poor grasp of basic English grammar. Grammatically, “whom you worship” refers to a person, not an abstract nature. The relative pronoun "whom" can only take a personal object, so the sentence points to the one who is worshiped, while nature functions as a descriptor of that person rather than the object of worship itself. In other words, the statement means: the described nature reveals or characterizes the person you worship, not that the nature is independently worshiped. The worship is directed toward a personal subject, and the nature is predicated of that subject.

Not redirecting the conversation at all.

Jesus is a human being, therefore has a human nature.
He is the anointed of God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God who displays the characteristics of God NOT GOD'S INHERENT, INNATE ATTRIBUTES [omni's, invisibility, immortality (he was given immortality)] but God's characteristics of righteousness, justice, holiness, kindness, love, grace, merciful, faithfulness, truthfulness, etc.

So the "nature of God" that RM said Jesus has is a human nature. Do you see the contradiction here or do I have to spell it out for you?

 

[synergy]

I hear you, but I also know you cannot change the English translation of what the Word is in 1John 1:1-3, nor the Greek, so I am not inclined to accept anything other than an agreement about what it says. You can argue all day, but you can't change it.

Who wants to change anything? Not me. I'm perfectly happy with how the 1 John 1 is structured. Bible Scholars understand how Greek-styled neuter pronouns are used in the Bible. They understand that they can refer to an abstracted or collective reality, which doesn't always make the reality an inanimate thing. Perfect example is John 3:6: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” We can all agree that a thing is not born of Spirit, people are. Right?

Why not just agree that the Word is eternal life and that eternal life is a thing Jesus and us can have and leave it as simple as that? I know why, it's because you need the Word to be a person even when it is demonstrably not.

Here's what's happening here: there is no way to make the Word a person in 1 John 1:1-3, but there is a valid way to make the Word a thing in John 1:1 and everywhere else in the Bible. See, you are outnumbered 10:1. It's you against Scripture at this point.

Since when can an inanimate thing be a God who tabernacles as Jesus? Explain that unitarian dogma to me.

 

[amazing grace]

I keep running into unitarians who possess a poor grasp of basic English grammar. Grammatically, “whom you worship” refers to a person, not an abstract nature. The relative pronoun "whom" can only take a personal object, so the sentence points to the one who is worshiped, while nature functions as a descriptor of that person rather than the object of worship itself. In other words, the statement means: the described nature reveals or characterizes the person you worship, not that the nature is independently worshiped. The worship is directed toward a personal subject, and the nature is predicated of that subject.

So the "nature of God" that RM said Jesus has is a human nature. Do you see the contradiction here or do I have to spell it out for you?

And I said I worship God. Repeat God is the person I worship.
I agree that Jesus has a human nature since he is a human being.

 

[synergy]

And I said I worship God. Repeat God is the person I worship.
I agree that Jesus has a human nature since he is a human being.

So according to you the "nature of God" that RM said Jesus has is a human nature. Thank you for exposing how you allow mind warping contradictions to exist in your mind.

 

[synergy]

And after that he wasn't there where you claim he was supposed to be. In the Bible, no one pre-exists their actual life, Jesus included. People can pre-exist in the sense of being pre-destined or pre-known by God, but not in the literal sense you are saying.

Crack open your Old Testament and you will notice that it portrays the Word of the Lord not as an impersonal utterance but as a communicator exhibiting full personal traits—initiative, intentionality, and authority. The repeated prophetic formula “the Word of the Lord came to…” (Jer 1:4; Ezek 1:3; Hos 1:1) presents the Word as an acting subject that initiates contact, addresses specific individuals, and delivers intelligible speech. The Word confronts, instructs, and commissions the prophets, distinguishing itself from their own thoughts or reflections. Such consistent depiction of the Word as one who comes, speaks, and addresses persons demonstrates individual agency and personal interaction rather than abstract divine information.

Although God’s essence is declared inaccessible—“You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20)—the Old Testament records genuine encounters in which God is present and personally engaged through a mediating manifestation that speaks and relates. In Genesis 18:1–13, the LORD appears, speaks, questions, and responds to Abraham; in Genesis 32:30, Jacob confesses, “I have seen God face to face,” yet lives. These texts reveal a divine presence that communicates, knows, and engages humans—core marks of personal identity—showing that God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament is mediated through the Word exhibiting full individual personality.

 

[amazing grace]

So according to you the "nature of God" that RM said Jesus has is a human nature. Thank you for exposing how you allow mind warping contradictions to exist in your mind.

Why not just give me your definition of nature?

I guess you just cannot give me your definition of nature?

If you mean by the 'the nature of God' the characteristics of God - Jesus does share these characteristics but if you mean by 'the nature of God', the innate inherent attributes of God - Jesus does not have.

 

[Runningman]

Who wants to change anything? Not me. I'm perfectly happy with how the 1 John 1 is structured. Bible Scholars understand how Greek-styled neuter pronouns are used in the Bible. They understand that they can refer to an abstracted or collective reality, which doesn't always make the reality an inanimate thing. Perfect example is John 3:6: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” We can all agree that a thing is not born of Spirit, people are. Right?

Since when can an inanimate thing be a God who tabernacles as Jesus? Explain that unitarian dogma to me.

1John 1:1-3 refers to the Word as a thing. Eternal life isn't a person. Do you see it? I'll even highlight it for you.

The Word is eternal life, eternal life is a thing, and it was revealed to the disciples, i.e., Jesus told them the way to eternal life. Explicitly says of the Word/eternal life that it's a that, which, this, what, and it. Means the Word isn't a person.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Crack open your Old Testament and you will notice that it portrays the Word of the Lord not as an impersonal utterance but as a communicator exhibiting full personal traits—initiative, intentionality, and authority. The repeated prophetic formula “the Word of the Lord came to…” (Jer 1:4; Ezek 1:3; Hos 1:1) presents the Word as an acting subject that initiates contact, addresses specific individuals, and delivers intelligible speech. The Word confronts, instructs, and commissions the prophets, distinguishing itself from their own thoughts or reflections. Such consistent depiction of the Word as one who comes, speaks, and addresses persons demonstrates individual agency and personal interaction rather than abstract divine information.

Although God’s essence is declared inaccessible—“You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20)—the Old Testament records genuine encounters in which God is present and personally engaged through a mediating manifestation that speaks and relates. In Genesis 18:1–13, the LORD appears, speaks, questions, and responds to Abraham; in Genesis 32:30, Jacob confesses, “I have seen God face to face,” yet lives. These texts reveal a divine presence that communicates, knows, and engages humans—core marks of personal identity—showing that God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament is mediated through the Word exhibiting full individual personality.

Don't get into the same pickle @mikesw did. There are no examples of Jesus in the Old Testament pre-existing. Show where he's at then clearly and explicitly.

 

[JesusFan]

Don't get into the same pickle @mikesw did. There are no examples of Jesus in the Old Testament pre-existing. Show where he's at then clearly and explicitly.

he appeared to Joshua, to Samson parents, to Abraham with the 2 Angels etc

 

[mikesw]

Don't get into the same pickle @mikesw did. There are no examples of Jesus in the Old Testament pre-existing. Show where he's at then clearly and explicitly.

I showed the ignorance of your question but you continue with it. hahaha
You would have to have had the NT verbiage in the OT all the time. But that is not how the scriptures were formed.

And really, we have had that answered in
1 Corinthians 10:4 (NASB95)
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Paul recognizes Christ in the OT but runningman cannot. I suspect Paul is most honest and faithful.

Great. There is another verse for unitarians to deny. The more you reject the less credible you become.

 

[Runningman]

he appeared to Joshua, to Samson parents, to Abraham with the 2 Angels etc

Nothing in the Bible says that.

 

[Runningman]

I showed the ignorance of your question but you continue with it. hahaha
You would have to have had the NT verbiage in the OT all the time. But that is not how the scriptures were formed.

And really, we have had that answered in
1 Corinthians 10:4 (NASB95)
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Paul recognizes Christ in the OT but runningman cannot. I suspect Paul is most honest and faithful.

Great. There is another verse for unitarians to deny. The more you reject the less credible you become.

No reference to a pre-existence here. No mention of Jesus in the Old Testament.

 

[mikesw]

No reference to a pre-existence here. No mention of Jesus in the Old Testament.

You have to explain the relevance of your point over against the testimony of Christ Jesus and John 1 (especially) on the preexistence of the One who becomes incarnate as Jesus. Otherwise, it is obvious why the name Jesus does not appear for Christ in the OT.
Your request is pure nonsense. You might find some self-joy in your nonsensical questions but that does not bolster any argument denying the deity of Christ.

 

[Runningman]

You have to explain the relevance of your point over against the testimony of Christ Jesus and John 1 (especially) on the preexistence of the One who becomes incarnate as Jesus. Otherwise, it is obvious why the name Jesus does not appear for Christ in the OT.
Your request is pure nonsense. You might find some self-joy in your nonsensical questions but that does not bolster any argument denying the deity of Christ.

No mention of Jesus being in the Old Testament though. The verse you quoted isn't about a person, but about a spiritual rock and spiritual drink, referring to religious concepts, not a person. In other words, there is foreshadowing in the Old Testament, a shadow of things to come, but not the reality themselves. You can just read the verses you quoted for what they say.

 

[mikesw]

No mention of Jesus being in the Old Testament though. The verse you quoted isn't about a person, but about a spiritual rock and spiritual drink, referring to religious concepts, not a person. In other words, there is foreshadowing in the Old Testament, a shadow of things to come, but not the reality themselves. You can just read the verses you quoted for what they say.

exactly. the unitarian response is deny, deny, deny. For them there is no acceptable evidence. And I read what I shared. duhhh.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by finding Jesus in the OT. Depending on what you explain your question would expect, then we can know if there is anything that could be realistic pro or con to answer it.

 

[Runningman]

exactly. the unitarian response is deny, deny, deny. For them there is no acceptable evidence. And I read what I shared. duhhh.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by finding Jesus in the OT. Depending on what you explain your question would expect, then we can know if there is anything that could be realistic pro or con to answer it.

I mean Jesus didn't exist in the Old Testament except in prophecy. For starters, we have no clear examples of him there saying or doing anything, but also Scripture states that speaking through the Son isn't the way God spoke in the beginning, when God was speaking to create, contrary to trinitarians stating that Jesus is the Word of creation. Doesn't jive well with Scripture.

Hebrews 1
1God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,

 

[Capbook]

I guess you just cannot give me your definition of nature?

If you mean by the 'the nature of God' the characteristics of God - Jesus does share these characteristics but if you mean by 'the nature of God', the innate inherent attributes of God - Jesus does not have.

amazing grace why skip my Post#101?

The word "nature" in Heb 1:3, with Strong#G5287, in Greek "ὑπόστασις hypostasis" defined by Mounce Bible lexicon means as - essence, etc.

While, Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon based on semantic domain define the it as means -the essential or basic nature of an entity, substance, nature, essence, real being etc.

Thus, Bible lexicons definition proves that Jesus is the exact representation of God the Fathers essence as God.
Also as the as the substance, real being, essential nature, essence of God the Father.

Heb 1:3 N1And He is the radianceG541 of His gloryG1391 and the exactG5481 R1representationG5481 of His natureG5287, and N2 R2upholdsG5342 allG3956 thingsG3956 by the wordG4487 of His powerG1411. When He had madeG4160 R3purificationG2512 of sinsG266, He R4satG2523 downG2523 at the rightG1188 handG1188 of the R5MajestyG3172 on highG5308.

G5287 (Mounce)
ὑπόστασις hypostasis
5x: pr. a standing under; a taking of a thing upon one’s self; an assumed position, an assumption of a specific character, 2Co_11:17; an engagement undertaken with regard to the conduct of others, a vouching, 2Co_9:4; or of one’s self, a pledged profession, Heb_3:14; an assured impression, a mental realizing, Heb_11:1; a substructure, basis; subsistence, essence, Heb_1:3.

G5287 (Louw and Nida Greek- English Lexicon)
ὑπόστασις hypostasis
the essential or basic nature of an entity - 'substance, nature, essence, real being.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

 

[Runningman]

amazing grace why skip my Post#101?

The word "nature" in Heb 1:3, with Strong#G5287, in Greek "ὑπόστασις hypostasis" defined by Mounce Bible lexicon means as - essence, etc.

While, Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon based on semantic domain define the it as means -the essential or basic nature of an entity, substance, nature, essence, real being etc.

Thus, Bible lexicons definition proves that Jesus is the exact representation of God the Fathers essence as God.
Also as the as the substance, real being, essential nature, essence of God the Father.

Heb 1:3 N1And He is the radianceG541 of His gloryG1391 and the exactG5481 R1representationG5481 of His natureG5287, and N2 R2upholdsG5342 allG3956 thingsG3956 by the wordG4487 of His powerG1411. When He had madeG4160 R3purificationG2512 of sinsG266, He R4satG2523 downG2523 at the rightG1188 handG1188 of the R5MajestyG3172 on highG5308.

G5287 (Mounce)
ὑπόστασις hypostasis
5x: pr. a standing under; a taking of a thing upon one’s self; an assumed position, an assumption of a specific character, 2Co_11:17; an engagement undertaken with regard to the conduct of others, a vouching, 2Co_9:4; or of one’s self, a pledged profession, Heb_3:14; an assured impression, a mental realizing, Heb_11:1; a substructure, basis; subsistence, essence, Heb_1:3.

G5287 (Louw and Nida Greek- English Lexicon)
ὑπόστασις hypostasis
the essential or basic nature of an entity - 'substance, nature, essence, real being.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

Yes exactly, Jesus represents the nature of God. That's what we're saying too. Representing the divine nature of God is something others can do too.

2 Peter 1
4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

 

[amazing grace]

God did create all things through HIS word - His creative speech : Repeatedly 'And God said'.
Then God had a conversation - with himself or with the other spiritual beings there with him?

This interpretation is in contradiction even to the words of the Father Himself. (Heb 1:2,10)
And make Jesus wrong when He said John 5:37.
And revised John 1:1c, as "the Word was the God," to imply it was the Father's logos/speech in the creation week.

So, in the beginning in Genesis where God created all things through HIS word -- where scripture says 'And God said' is a contracdiction to WHAT?
AGAIN, JOHN is not saying 'God was the Word' there is NO DEFINITE ARTICLE BEFORE GOD which makes the noun 'god' nominative not vocative - qualitative NOT equal.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Yes, all things came through the word.

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities --- were created through him and for him things in the heavens = invisible, things on earth = visible ---- things in relation to the church and the age to come ..... he is before all things and in him all things hold together, and he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

That does not say that Jesus made the world.

Heb 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

Psalm 102:25 lifted from the OT which has been modified in relation to Christ. In the OT, the wording applicable to Yahweh is 'of old age' or 'of old' - here being applied to Christ, the wording is 'in the beginning'. The subject has changed from from Yahweh to Christ and when the subject changes usually the action applied to the subject changes SO ---- Is 'in the beginning' applicable to Genesis or is it applicable to the 'new creation'? the new heavens and the new earth? (Heb. 2:5 For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come of which we are speaking.)

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

God created all things. It seems later manuscripts add "by Jesus Christ"......the simple reading 'who created all things' is supported by the early manuscripts. (cf. ASV, BBE, CEB, CJB, CSB, DBY, DRA, ERV, ESV, NAB, NET, NIV, NJB, NLT, NRSV, RSV, RV). 'By Jesus Christ' ---- found in the Textus Receptus and KJV, is missing from early, significant manuscripts. The phrase
"by Jesus Christ" (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), found in the Textus Receptus and KJV, is missing from early, significant manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Again, earliest manuscripts read - "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created"......... supported by the Critical Text (NA28) and the Majority/Byzantine text.

amazing grace why skip my Post#101? <snip>

It would probably be best if you researched the scriptures you use instead of just going through and picking out verses where create is linked to Jesus' name.