• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Why there is no clear mention of trinity in the old testament?

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Godistruth1, Mar 14, 2019.

  1. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    The logos was NOT theos. Theos was the logos.

    The key to understanding this lies in the word order of John 1:1c. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

    "As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

    καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
    and God was the Word.

    We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force. (Parenthesis mine).

    In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

    The Son was not the logos in John 1:1. He became the logos made flesh in verse 14.
     
  2. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    He existed before existence itself so there isn’t a time where he didn’t properly exist. Yahweh spoke things with his Word which is uncreated and begotten of him making it also God, the Gospel of John and Colossians further clarify this by saying the Word existed in the beginning and all things were made through it. I’m talking about Adam Clarke’s commentary on Colossians 1:15 not Colossians 1:16.
     
  3. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    If there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form (“theos and Logos”), then the noun with the definite article (“ho”=“the” is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, “The Word Was God, is the correct translation and not “God was the Word.” Now that that’s out of the way, if the Word has the same attributes as Yahweh and is eternal as Yahweh is then it is also Yahweh. The Word of God can’t be a creature otherwise it’s not his uncreated Word. John 1:14 doesn’t say that the Logos became the Son or that the Son became the Logos made flesh, it says we have seen his glory the one of the only Son begotten of the Father which means the Son has always been begotten of the Father Which means he was always the Logos.
     
  4. Uber Genius

    Uber Genius "Super Genius"

    +1,026
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    A helpful video by an OT scholar is found here:

     
  5. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    Philosophy, not Scripture.

    I know. His commentary about verse 15 is based on his false understanding of verse 16.
     
  6. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    Scripture is based on philosophy and uses it frequent, so to say we can’t try to understand scripture with philosophy is a fallacy. As for Adam Clarke’s commentary, his commentary on verse 15 doesn’t have anything to do with verse 16, my point was that the title, first begotten of all creatures doesn’t indicate Christ was infact a creature, all things and creation can’t be made through another creation or a creature.
     
  7. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    If I say, "This is the reddest of every apple", that indicates "this" is an apple. If I say, "The mosquito is the most dangerous of every creature" or "of all creation", that means the mosquito is a creature or something created. For Paul to say Yeshua is the "firstborn of every creature" or "of all creation", that means Yeshua is a creature or someone created.
     
  8. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    By that logic Jesus is also currently dead considering he’s called firstborn of the dead in Colossians 1:18.
     
  9. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    It means he was among those that were dead. Now he has been resurrected making him the firstborn of all that were dead. Your reply proves my point. Thank you.
     
  10. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    Actually Paul or whoever from among his disciples who wrote the letter of Colossians actually proves my point in verse 18 which says that he is the first born of the dead, notice it doesn’t say what you want it to say to prove your argument that he was the first born of the dead. It says that he presently is the first born of the dead, Jesus at the time of the letters composition wasn’t dead, but alive nor was he the first person to die. So he wasn’t dead at the time Colossians was written despite being called the first born of the dead in present tense and as we continue we read that he may be in all things preeminent which is what Paul meant in Colossians 1:15 we also read that Christ was the beginning, it doesn’t say he had a beginning, but rather he was the beginning of all things being God’s uncreated Word. He entered creation, yet isn’t a creature, he died, yet did not stay among the dead. So following the writers logic in as we see in verse 18. Christ was the first born of the dead because he mastered death, yet we know he wasn’t the first to die and isn’t dead and we know he entered creation yet isn’t a creature because he is the Word who is the beginning of everything and is he firstborn of everything because he hold supremacy over all things.
     
  11. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    A masterful twisting of Scripture. You willfully blind yourself. First of all, verse 18 says "from" the dead, not "of" the dead. It is not the same Greek wording as in verse 15. Secondly, of course Paul was speaking presently because Yeshua was already the firstborn from the dead. Thirdly, speaking of "beginning", we read in Revelation 3:14 that Yeshua is the "beginning of the creation of God." Fourthly, your misunderstanding of John 1 via reading the Son into the logos skews your interpretation of what Paul is saying in Colossians 1. Yes, he has the preeminence in all things, including being the first creature to be resurrected from the dead (firstborn).
     
  12. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    Actually it is the same Greek word Prototokos and your write it says from the dead, he is the prototokos over all creation, Christ isn’t currently dead in verse 18 nor is he a creature in verse 15. Jesus was already risen by the time Colossians 18 was written and by applying your same approach that you use on verse 15 Jesus must be dead since he is the first born from among the dead. He is the beginning of the creation of God which means all things were created through him as the Logos as we read in John 1, Revelation 3:14 states he was the beginning of all creation which he was, it doesn’t say that he was the first of all creatures, there’s a difference. To have preeminence over all creatures he obviously can’t be a creature himself as only God have preeminence over all creation.
     
  13. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    I have no problem with the word "prototokos". The phrase does not translate as "over all creation", but as "of all creation". Big difference. "Over" can exclude him from creation and "of" includes as part of creation.

    The fact that he was alive when verse 18 was written was necessary for him to be the firstborn (meaning first resurrected unto eternal life) from the dead. If he was still dead, then he could not be the firstborn from the dead. Similarly, the fact that he was alive when verse 15 was written was necessary for him to be the firstborn of all creation. If he was still dead, then he could not be the firstborn of all creation.

    Revelation 3:14 has nothing to do with Yeshua creating. It has to do with him being the first created. However, it is not talking about the Genesis creation, but the new creation that YHWH is creating (the new heavens and new earth). Also, the verse does not say he is the "beginner" of creation, but the "beginning". "Beginning" does not mean "preeminence", but first in time. Yeshua does not need to be God in order to have the preeminence (superiority) over all creation. He has that because YHWH, the only true God (John 17:3) gave it to him when He gave Yeshua all authority and power.
     
  14. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    Actually it translates as over all creation in this particular case:

    Colossians 1:15 Greek Text Analysis

    You proved my point if he was dead he can’t be preeminent over all the dead, if he’s a created being he can’t have preeminence over all creation for that belongs to God alone who Jesus is. It’s pretty clear that Jesus is not the first thing created, him being the beginning of creation simply means that everything was created through him as the Logos as John 1:1 tells us he was eternally with God and all things were amde through him so he was the beginning of all creation, Revelation 3:14 doesn’t say he was the first thing created. To have things all created through you indicates preeminence as does the use of first born in Colossians 1:15 just as it was used for David in Psalm 89:27.

    In Triniatarian context all persons of the Holy Trinity are true God as they each possess the same substance of each other, so Jesus calling the Father the only true God isn’t a problem for a Trinitarian. And if your Unitarian then saying God glorified Jesus with his own glory is a problem when we see that Isaiah 42:8 makes it clear that God gives his glory to no other, Yahweh only glorifies Yahweh. Notice what Jesus says in John 17:5, he tells God to glorify him with the glory he had with God before all creation as we see in the opening of John using the How can a creature ask God to glorify him in such a way, to do so would be utter blasphemy. The Expositor’s Greek New Testament sums it up:

    “The precise character of the glorification He looks for is here presented. It is παρὰ σεαυτῷ, and it is a restoration to the glory He had enjoyed πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. By παρὰ σεαυτῷ it is *rendered impossible to understand παρὰ σοί of an “ideal” pre-existence;* because these two expressions are here *equivalents*, and Christ *cannot be supposed* to have prayed for an “ideal” glory when He asked that God would glorify Him παρὰ σεαυτῷ. “There is, consequently, here, as in John 6:62, John 8:58, a continuity of the consciousness of the historical Christ with the Logos.”

    The late renowned Greek NT scholar A.T. Robertson wrote:

    Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Proß with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of proß: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton ecomen proß ton patera). See proswpon proß proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of proß. There is a papyrus example of proß in this sense to gnwston thß proß allhlouß sunhqeiaß, "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 proß here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament; source)
     
  15. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    That link does not provide the Greek meaning, but only the translation from the Apostolic Bible Polyglot which they trust is translated correctly. It is not. As is usually the case, the earlier translations got it right (of every creature) and the newer translations, which do all they can to push the trinity, got it wrong (over all creation). All three major Aramaic versions use "of all/every creature(s)".

    You willfully shut your eyes/ears to what I am saying. He is the "fisrtborn". He is alive while all other believers are dead. He was the first to be born from the dead. Therefore, he has the preeminence in that area.

    Still misled by your blatant reading of the Son into the logos. Ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

    I never said YHWH gave Yeshua His own glory. He gave His Son the Son's own glory that He had in store for him. The verse does not say, "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which you had", but "which I had".

    Anyone who reads the Son into John 1:1 is deceived, including Robertson.
     
  16. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,745
    Saudi Arabia
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    Please provide evidence that it wasn’t translated correctly, I’m sure you wouldn’t say Jesus was the first born of the dead rather he was the first born over all the dead would be more accurate as we see in Colossians 1:18. Any Aramaic translation of the Bible has been a translation of the original Greek version so we look at what the Bible says in its original language to get a more accurate picture of what it says.

    Jesus isn’t the first person to truly come back alive either after having died either so in a way he isn’t the first born of the dead, but he was the only one to claim preeminence over it by conquering it. However by your logic he must also be among the dead considering this is what your applying to Colossians 1:15. Since you agree that Jesus wasn’t currently dead when Colossians 1:18 was written, it simply means he had preeminence over the dead as you seemingly agree, yet apply a different approach to Colossians 1:15 and we know a creature can’t have preeminence over all creatures that is given to God alone.

    Pretty much any Biblical scholar would tell you that John portrayed Jesus as the Logos, that’s simply a fact. There’s simply no other consistent way to read the text that doesn’t end up self contradictory.

    According to the Greek word para Jesus had glory personally with his Father face to face before the world came into existence literally. Notice what Jesus says, he says glorify your Son so your Son May glorify you which means it goes vice versa and we know Yahweh doesn’t glorify creatures. Any glory that Yahweh or God has is his own not that of creatures.

    It seems Robertson better learn Greek grammar from you instead, despite being a leading Greek New Testament scholar.
     
  17. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,021
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    This is from the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer;
    upload_2019-6-16_9-28-5.png

    We don't find "over" in either Strong's or Thayer's lexicons.

    This is from Abarim Publications Biblical Dictionary;

    upload_2019-6-16_9-42-17.png

    You will need to show me a lexicon or grammar that says it means "over".

    Colossians 1:15 and 1:18 are addressing two different aspects that relate to Yeshua's resurrection. In verse 15, Paul teaches that Yeshua was the first to be resurrected unto eternal life. It cannot refer to his being "born" (Strong's G5088 - to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative) prior to the literal creation in Genesis 1 because he was never "born" or "produced from seed" at that time. The majority of deceived Christianity believes he is eternal (no beginning).

    In verse 18, Paul teaches that Yeshua has preeminence because he is the firstborn from the dead (the first to be resurrected unto eternal life). So verse 15 states the fact of his being the firstborn and verse 18 teaches the result of him being the firstborn (it gives him the preeminence).

    BTW, verse 17 is also translated incorrectly. It should read, "And he is above all things, and through him all things consist." The conjunction "And" to begin the verse shows that this is when he brings in the aspect of preeminence, not in verse 15 or 16.

    I agree that they would say that. The truth is, John portrays Yeshua as the logos in verse 14 and not in verse 1. Verses 1-3 introduces the concept of YHWH's spoken words and thoughts (logos) as they relate to creation in that He spoke everything into existence. He then explains that those words and thoughts were made flesh.

    Para is referring to Yeshua's desire to be glorified beside his Father once he is resurrected. It has reference to the future, not the past. There is nothing in the text about seeing his Father face to face prior to creation.

    Yes, it goes vice versa. After YHWH glorifies Yeshua by resurrecting him and sitting him on His right hand, then Yeshua will glorify his Father through those he brings to salvation.

    YHWH does indeed glorify creatures;

    Jeremiah 30:19 And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small.
    Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Messiah; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
    Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.​

    I never said Robertson's grammar was wrong. He is wrong to read the Son into the logos. That is opinion, not grammar.
     
Loading...