Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Bar Elohin...(Aramaic)
Ben Elohim ...(Hebrew)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Eternal Son.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Bar Elohin...(Aramaic)
Ben Elohim ...(Hebrew)
You are correct.
However, the use of "like" does not oblige was, and from the Jewish perspective, there was no occasion to consider use of "son" as indicating a three-person God. (Daniel was written from a Jewish perspective)
Here is a bit more on that topic:
Yeshua Ben Elohim | Voice in the Wilderness
It presents in larger formate rather than presenting on the BB.
Basically, the word "son" denoting a plurality was abhorrent to Jews, but as I indicated in the use of "Lord." The Jews had no problem with God attending in physical form to humankind, so they would have rejected the idea that God's Son was also God.
I don't want to get too in-depth to this theme, but to express that the writing of Matthew and Hebrews laid out to especially the Jews the concepts in which they stumbled, and presented the Son as the Messiah King High Priest, God.
Recall both Paul and the Christ were often confrontational concerning this matter, too.
In my opinion, it is a considerable difficulty even in this day in which the Jews cannot yet come to terms, but will one day as God continues to work in their lives.
just a reminder.
of course the Trinity is only fully revealed in the New Testament and even there it must be concluded after a historical and comparative scripture search which was not codified until the Council of Nicaea.
37818
Well-Known Member
None of those truths establish the Son was the Son prior to His incarnation. Not even Him being declared the Son in His bodily resureection, Romans 1:4.
Origen
Active Member
The Aramaic has "a" vowel, not an "o" under the lamed. The form is אֱלָהִין (= elahin).
I have a question. Since Nebuchadnezzar's counselors were undoubtably pagans, polytheists, wouldn't they be saying something like "a son of the gods"?
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Apologies for replying after intending to stop posting in this thread, but I'd like to address something said on page two.
So, I'll go ahead and make one more post:
Athanasius ( 296-373 A.D.) knew of it and wrote of it.
Origen ( 184-253 ) made reference to it.
Gregory of Nazianzus ( 329-390 ) makes a small reference to it.
John Crysostum ( 349-407 ) does as well.
Zacharias Rhetor ( b.465 A.D. ) quotes from it.
There's more.
Sources:
Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - King James Version Today
...and many more.
Ok.
But to me, that still does not eradicate it.
There are references ( "witnesses" ) that are as old as "Vaticanus" ( or close to its age ) that do have it.
Just because the oldest two surviving Greek manuscripts ( that were both in possession of the Roman Catholic Church...Vaticanus until recently and Siniaticus until the mid-1800's ) do not have it, does not mean there is no evidence for it having existed.
Why bother writing it in the margin, except to accommodate people who have grown used to it being in their Bibles?
Answer:
In order to bring about change in something that has long been accepted, the most common method of introducing that change is to slip it in slowly, so as to get everyone used to it.
After a while, no one will even know that it existed.
Therefore, those that hold on to their Bibles that do have it, will be ridiculed for even making reference to it...all in the name of "progress".
Isn't that what is happening today?
Another question:
Can you think of any reason why anyone should be concerned with it being there, or not being there?
Answer:
I can.
Those that care about God's every word and who live by them ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ) are concerned that those precious words are being changed, added to or subtracted from, in each successive generation of Bible translation.
If God's words are of no concern to you, then it saddens me to hear it.
Finally,
Tell the millions of people who have believed that verse by faith, that it isn't God's word.
The brothers and sisters that came before me knew that it was, and I know that it is.
Have a good evening, sir.
So, I'll go ahead and make one more post:
Syriac Peshitta and older Latin versions ( from about the same time as Vaticanus, 4th century ) have it.
Athanasius ( 296-373 A.D.) knew of it and wrote of it.
Origen ( 184-253 ) made reference to it.
Gregory of Nazianzus ( 329-390 ) makes a small reference to it.
John Crysostum ( 349-407 ) does as well.
Zacharias Rhetor ( b.465 A.D. ) quotes from it.
There's more.
Sources:
Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - King James Version Today
...and many more.
Greek manuscripts?
Ok.
But to me, that still does not eradicate it.
There are references ( "witnesses" ) that are as old as "Vaticanus" ( or close to its age ) that do have it.
Just because the oldest two surviving Greek manuscripts ( that were both in possession of the Roman Catholic Church...Vaticanus until recently and Siniaticus until the mid-1800's ) do not have it, does not mean there is no evidence for it having existed.
Ok....
Question:
Why bother writing it in the margin, except to accommodate people who have grown used to it being in their Bibles?
Answer:
In order to bring about change in something that has long been accepted, the most common method of introducing that change is to slip it in slowly, so as to get everyone used to it.
After a while, no one will even know that it existed.
Therefore, those that hold on to their Bibles that do have it, will be ridiculed for even making reference to it...all in the name of "progress".
Isn't that what is happening today?
Another question:
Can you think of any reason why anyone should be concerned with it being there, or not being there?
Answer:
I can.
Those that care about God's every word and who live by them ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ) are concerned that those precious words are being changed, added to or subtracted from, in each successive generation of Bible translation.
If God's words are of no concern to you, then it saddens me to hear it.
Finally,
Tell the millions of people who have believed that verse by faith, that it isn't God's word.
The brothers and sisters that came before me knew that it was, and I know that it is.
Have a good evening, sir.
Last edited:
they might but who is the true author of the scripture and who put the words into these pagan mouths?
oops yes Elahin is correct.
Last edited:
The inspired writer of Hebrews quoted the OT as referring to the Son. Psalms 45:6-7 is referring to the Son. Case closed
The writer of Hebrews says the OT reference was to the Son, not a future Son.
I did, or I thought I did.
1) I do not think anyone is claiming the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist before the incarnation. No one has denied this truth.
2) I am unsure if anyone claims the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit did not exist before the incarnation. No one has denied this truth.
But since the "Angel of the Lord" functions under the auspices of God, the roles appear to exist before the incarnation.
3) Therefore the dispute seems to be on whether the Second Person of the Trinity was considered to fill the role of the Son, before the incarnation, and therefore was the Son, before the incarnation.
Hebrews 1:8 confirms that the pre-incarnate "God" referred to in Psalm 45:6-7 was set by His God (the Father) above His companions. Thus the "Son" was positioned by the Father before the incarnation.
Origen
Active Member
The Peshitta does not have the Comma. It only has the following reading:
"And there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are in one." There are at least three online translations you can check.
This is the Comma:
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.
The sections in bold are found in the Greek text Of the New Testament. It is the section in red which is in disputed. The Greek text has "For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one" just like the Peshitta. There is no dispute concerning that.
The earliest Old Latin manuscripts containing the Comma dates ca. 7th century. Also the earliest Vulgate manuscripts containing 1 John (i.e. Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus both dated to the 5th century) do not have the Comma.
From a previous post of yours:
Because He emanates from the "bosom" of the Father. The innermost being of the Father.
bosom - kolpos: 03788 the region of the body extending from the breasts to the legs, - Louw-Nida Lexicon
bosom - kolpos: 23019-2 the womb - Liddell Scott Lexicon
They share the same essence of being.
Consider:
In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken (The Word was God John 1 1) to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son, ( And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:14 ) whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages; Heb 1:1,2
And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.Heb 7:9,10
Was Levi in the bosom of Abraham when Mel met him?
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Heb 1:1,2
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Cor 15:50
Did, 1 Cor 15:50, apply to the eternal Son appointed heir of all things?
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Cor 15:50
Did, 1 Cor 15:50, apply to the eternal Son appointed heir of all things?
no, a different word is used in the book of Hebrews
Hebrews 7:10 For he was yet in the loins (Greek osphus) of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
37818
Well-Known Member
Strawman argument. Since three Persons who are God is not even the issue.
Dr Walter Martiin and others. It was Dr Walter Martin's denial that the Son was the "eternal" Son that I looked at the question, and personally came to the conclusion that the Son was always the eternal Son, though no Scripture refers to Him in that way.
Now without John 1:18 originally teaching "the unique Son" it would therefore only be as the "unique God" from the side of the Father that appeared in the OT for the invisible God the Father. No eternal Sonship prior to His incarnation. Merely interpreting and claiming the "eternal" Son does not make it Biblical.
The Syriac Peshitta does not have the extra words of the Comma Johannine. In fact no other ancient Version has it either. Only old latin and vulgate mauscripts have it.
All of these are Greek writers, and no Greek writers quoted the Comma Johannine. Your own website does not quote the extra words of the Comma Johannine when quoting these authors who were talking about the Trinity, which they knew. Had they known the extra words they would have quoted them.
For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The words in black and were known to the Greek Fathers. The words in red are the words of the Comma Johannine.
Greek manuscripts?
Ok.
But to me, that still does not eradicate it.
There are references ( "witnesses" ) that are as old as "Vaticanus" ( or close to its age ) that do have it.
Just because the oldest two surviving Greek manuscripts ( that were both in possession of the Roman Catholic Church...Vaticanus until recently and Siniaticus until the mid-1800's ) do not have it, does not mean there is no evidence for it having existed.
Ok....
Question:
Why bother writing it in the margin, except to accommodate people who have grown used to it being in their Bibles?
Answer:
In order to bring about change in something that has long been accepted, the most common method of introducing that change is to slip it in slowly, so as to get everyone used to it.
After a while, no one will even know that it existed.
Therefore, those that hold on to their Bibles that do have it, will be ridiculed for even making reference to it...all in the name of "progress".
Isn't that what is happening today?
Another question:
Can you think of any reason why anyone should be concerned with it being there, or not being there?
Answer:
I can.
Those that care about God's every word and who live by them ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ) are concerned that those precious words are being changed, added to or subtracted from, in each successive generation of Bible translation.
If God's words are of no concern to you, then it saddens me to hear it.
Finally,
Tell the millions of people who have believed that verse by faith, that it isn't God's word.
The brothers and sisters that came before me knew that it was, and I know that it is.
Have a good evening, sir.
Last edited:
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. I made the case, you ignored it. I did not rely on John 1:18,
Apparently (I bolded it in red) you deny that the "Angel of the Lord" was the second person of the trinity, but something from the "side of the Father."
he was always God the Son/Word, who when he took on humanity became Son of God!