Woooaah dooooooood!!!
@Shibboleth just went all mystical and my mind is blown right now! ... Surely a new theological term to me as well, and am now gonna jump in that rabbit hole to see what's in there for fun!
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Any Binitarians out there?
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
Woooaah dooooooood!!!
@Shibboleth just went all mystical and my mind is blown right now! ... Surely a new theological term to me as well, and am now gonna jump in that rabbit hole to see what's in there for fun!
I don't have a problem with all of us discussing our Christology, but this is veering slightly off topic from the OP, I think.
My original post made an assumption that most here are trinitarian, but wanted to see views and input on binitarianism.
Mods, do you think it would be best to start a new thread on "The nature(s) of Jesus" or something like that?
@Verifyveritas76 @aineo ....What think Ye?
@FollowingHim I know you're busy
My original post made an assumption that most here are trinitarian, but wanted to see views and input on binitarianism.
Mods, do you think it would be best to start a new thread on "The nature(s) of Jesus" or something like that?
@Verifyveritas76 @aineo ....What think Ye?
@FollowingHim I know you're busy
Last edited:
Thanks @aineo, been pretty tied up and just stopping back in for a minute.
I found a passage this morning that seemed to add to the original thought though it doesn't specifically equate the three as one. From other passages, I think that we agree that the Father and the Son are one, the question is about the role of the Spirit in the Godhead. In this passage, what struck me was that the Spirit seems to have inclusion and a role in the sending of the Messiah.
Isaiah 48:16. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
I found a passage this morning that seemed to add to the original thought though it doesn't specifically equate the three as one. From other passages, I think that we agree that the Father and the Son are one, the question is about the role of the Spirit in the Godhead. In this passage, what struck me was that the Spirit seems to have inclusion and a role in the sending of the Messiah.
Isaiah 48:16. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Nice.
****** warning, kind of technical post about Hebrew and Greek grammar, skip if you hate this stuff******
This is an interesting passage you produced here VV especially for binatarian+ evidences in the Old Testament.
The Hebrew:
קִרְב֧וּ אֵלַ֣י שִׁמְעוּ־זֹ֗את לֹ֤א מֵרֹאשׁ֙ בַּסֵּ֣תֶר דִּבַּ֔רְתִּי מֵעֵ֥ת הֱיֹותָ֖הּ שָׁ֣ם אָ֑נִי וְעַתָּ֗ה אֲדֹנָ֧י יי שְׁלָחַ֖נִי וְרוּחֹֽו׃ פ
says the same as your English, but there is an interesting detail in the grammar here.
The words in green are "Adonai Hashem" = "my L-rd, Hashem" and they, together with the word in red:
v'rukho = and His spirit are the subject of the verb sh'lakhaniy = He sent me (if anyone is colorblind green is bold, red is italics and purple is underlined)
So, while we have an apparent plural subject "my L-rd, Hashem ... and His spirit" we would expect the verb to be in the plural...
so it *should* say: sh'lakhuniy = they sent me but instead we have the interesting *singular* form of the verb despite having a plural subject.
It's also weird in biblical Hebrew syntax to split the subject around the verb like this. The usual syntax would be verb followed by subject, unless we want to emphasize the subject then we put the subject *before the verb*
so there is actual emphasis here on "Adonai, Hashem" since it's placed before the verb, but then, very oddly the "and His spirit" comes
*after* the verb so one part of the subject is on one side of the verb getting special emphasis (I would use italics in my translation to show this or bold) and the other part of the subject is in the normal position after the verb. It's odd enough that it makes me ask "why is it so odd"? and it definitely requires close attention. I would say it means 1 of 2 things:
a) textual corruption - so we would look at other manuscript variants which do exist for this verse - I won't address these here as the Hebrew version listed is the Masoretic text. If anyone's interested let me know and I'll either PM or respond here with the variant readings.
b) there is a special meaning being telegraphed here by the writer which a native speaker would have noticed by the strange language employed here.
If we go with b) The emphasis is placed on the most important part of the subject being Adonai, Hashem and the split part of the subject,b) there is a special meaning being telegraphed here by the writer which a native speaker would have noticed by the strange language employed here.
and His spirit is taking a lesser role in the sending. Wonderful verse.
Some may say "oh it's poetic and the, and His spirit part is the object and the object marker is missing because it's poetic" that could be, but I looked at the Septuagint text and it translates (1st part of verse not included for brevity's sake):
καὶ νῦν κύριος ἀπέσταλκέν με καὶ τo πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ.
[for those who care this is the Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft version, other versions have kurios twice, 1 time upper case]
The LXX supports our rendering of the Hebrew. It even beautifully, you can see by the colors (remember the Hebrew is right to left direction) splits the subject also! The Greek is being painfully faithful to the Hebrew here. The 'and His spirit' is beautifully preserved after the verb in the Greek also (it's in the Nominative case so we know it's the subject, not just a poetic usage of a verbal object).
Really nice find @Verifyveritas76 for complex unity of G-d demonstrated in the Old Testament
Last edited:
I didn't think about this till now but the verse also has bearing on the nature of Jesus thread also: from the beginning . . .there am I, and now the Lord God and his spirit hath sent me (the Redeemer). Isaiah 48:16
Never underestimate the power of culture
True.
Yeah that verse is really a goldmine for all kinds of thought.
Maybe you should cross post over in that thread also, or link to your comment here and my grammar digging?
I was also going to originally comment on how even though the holy spirit isn't mentioned so often in the Tanakh, your original comment about Messiah made me think of how the holy spirit is mentioned in psalms by David "ruach kodshekha al tishkakh mimeni" "do not remove your holy spirit from me", David of course you know is ancestor and type of the Messiah as well as literally being a "Mashiach" anointed one.
Last edited:
While studying some more on the Clement of Alexandria thread, I ran across this commentary/compilation of mid to late 2nd century quotes from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others on the relationship of the Godhead.
Hope its enlightening.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/demonstrationapostolic.html
Hope its enlightening.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/demonstrationapostolic.html
I will have some good reading to do. Thanks.
Not to start this whole debate up again . . . . But, I came across another book by Ken Johnson on The Ancient Scriptures. I’m still working my way through it and he had several quotes referrenced that discussed the 1 John 5:7&8 passage
AD 325 400 Jerome was asked to create a modern version of the Bible in the common language of the people. He agreed and produced the Latin Vulgate. Jerome strongly recommended the A pocrypha be left out because it was not in the Hebrew version , and the Greek version that had it seemed corrupted. He also stated the Greek version had removed 1 John 5:7-8 . H e strongly o pposed removing these verses from the Vulgate [g] .
John Mill edit ed the Received Text and add ed patristic (ancient church fathers) quotes in 1707. There are over 86,000 Scripture quotes from the Ante-Nicene church fathers (AD 32-325). These quotes show the verses normally not found in modern Bibles, like 1 John 5:7-8, were included in Bibles in the second century.
As many of you know, I’m a fan of Ken Johnson’s work. This particular work is a very easy read and delivers a very concise overview of the history and genesis of many of the corrupted works as well as history of the early church’s endeavors to spread the gospel by translating them into the common tongues of quite a few languages by the middle of the 2nd century. His introduction to a man named Erasmus is particularly interesting, circa early 16th century.
AD 325 400 Jerome was asked to create a modern version of the Bible in the common language of the people. He agreed and produced the Latin Vulgate. Jerome strongly recommended the A pocrypha be left out because it was not in the Hebrew version , and the Greek version that had it seemed corrupted. He also stated the Greek version had removed 1 John 5:7-8 . H e strongly o pposed removing these verses from the Vulgate [g] .
John Mill edit ed the Received Text and add ed patristic (ancient church fathers) quotes in 1707. There are over 86,000 Scripture quotes from the Ante-Nicene church fathers (AD 32-325). These quotes show the verses normally not found in modern Bibles, like 1 John 5:7-8, were included in Bibles in the second century.
As many of you know, I’m a fan of Ken Johnson’s work. This particular work is a very easy read and delivers a very concise overview of the history and genesis of many of the corrupted works as well as history of the early church’s endeavors to spread the gospel by translating them into the common tongues of quite a few languages by the middle of the 2nd century. His introduction to a man named Erasmus is particularly interesting, circa early 16th century.
Several ancient church fathers quote or allude to this passage. Cyprian says: The Lord says, ‘ I and the Father are one; ’ [ John 10:30 ] and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy S pirit, ‘a nd these three are one ’ [1 John 5:7-8]. Cyprian, Unity of the Church 6 , AD 250
“‘These Three are one’ in essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and M y Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance , not singularity of number.” Tertullian Against Praxeas 25 , AD 200
Here are some other references given in his book
215, Tertullian, Against Praxeas 25 250 , Cyprian, Unity of the Church 6 250 , Cyprian, Epistle to Jubaianus 635, Athanasius, Books 1 & 10 , cited three times 380, Priscillian , Liber Apologeticus 385, Gregory of Nazianzus , Theological Orientations (Holy Spirit ) 390, Jerome, Prologue to the General Epistles 450, Author Unknown, De divinis Scripturis suie Spaculum 500, Jerome, Codex Freisingensis 527, Flugentius , De Trinitate
“‘These Three are one’ in essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and M y Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance , not singularity of number.” Tertullian Against Praxeas 25 , AD 200
Here are some other references given in his book
215, Tertullian, Against Praxeas 25 250 , Cyprian, Unity of the Church 6 250 , Cyprian, Epistle to Jubaianus 635, Athanasius, Books 1 & 10 , cited three times 380, Priscillian , Liber Apologeticus 385, Gregory of Nazianzus , Theological Orientations (Holy Spirit ) 390, Jerome, Prologue to the General Epistles 450, Author Unknown, De divinis Scripturis suie Spaculum 500, Jerome, Codex Freisingensis 527, Flugentius , De Trinitate
He finishes the book with a pretty in depth comparison of most (if not all) of the versions from the 13oo’s to present from the perspective of a study Bible. He is not a KJV only guy which makes this work very interesting and enlightening. There’s a lot of info in a short read. I finished it in about an hour.