Did Jesus preach or proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity?

[tabibito]

Ah of course ... πριν is an accusative particle.

[Georg Kaplin]

Ah of course ... πριν is an accusative particle.

Accusative? Can you explain what you mean by that? I'll be back in a couple hours.

[tabibito]

πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
before - Abraham - came to be - I - am

Abraham - indeclinable noun
came to be - aorist infinitive - to be (completed action)

14 occurrences of πριν in the NT, most followed by infinitive verbs (πριν being more an adverb than particle)
Very few occurrences where πριν is followed by a noun (usually the infamous rooster).
Where followed immediately by a declinable noun, that noun is accusative.

[Georg Kaplin]

πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
before - Abraham - came to be - I - am

Abraham - indeclinable noun
came to be - aorist infinitive - to be (completed action)

14 occurrences of πριν in the NT, most followed by infinitive verbs (πριν being more an adverb than particle)
Very few occurrences where πριν is followed by a noun (usually the infamous rooster).
Where followed immediately by a declinable noun, that noun is accusative.

Nouns have case, and accusative is the case of the direct object. Adverbs do not have case. So for example, the word god is θεος in the nominative and θεον in the accusative, that is for singular number. There are, in fact, no nouns in John 8:58 that are accusative. I would suggest a beginning Greek grammar like Mounce. That is what I started with over 20 years ago. My Wallace grammar is from 1996.

That being said, I think you are pulling my leg :)

[tabibito]

I do use Mounce's work, and do further research by looking at usages in the NT and the LXX. Occasionally the dictionaries and grammar texts don't pick up on (for example) colloquial usages, though that is less common in grammar texts.
When used as nouns, infinitives are often best rendered in English as gerunds.

prin.jpg

πριν:
note: in examples given below,

"(did)" only marks a completed action - it isn't part of the translation.
{~} indicates not in UBS5 texts.

Matthew 1:18 ... πριν η συνελθειν αυτους ...

common interlinear rendering - πρὶν (before) ἢ (rather) συνελθεῖν (coming together) - "H" precedes 2nd aorist infinitive "to (did) cohabit."
Why is "H" given ἢ rather than ἡ? The infinitive can be used as a noun - and that usage frequently is marked by a definite article placed prior to the infinitive.

Matthew 26:34 ... πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι ...

αλεκτορα "rooster" is in the accusative case. Where do grammar texts claim that an accusative noun can perform an action?
φωνησαι "to (did) emit a sound" aorist active infinitive
"Cock-crow" would preserve the sense - unless it can be shown that accusative nouns can perform actions; a claim which I've never encountered in any grammar text.

πρὶν (before) {H} (the) ἐλθεῖν (coming) ἡμέραν (day) Κυρίου (of the Lord)

ημεραν is accusative case
ελθειν is 2nd aorist infinitive (to (did) come or go)
ελθειν is preceded by H in Byzantine Majority texts = "the to {did} come or go."
Frequently, this verse DOES render the infinitive as a gerund: "before the coming of the day of the Lord"

ETA

All up, noting that πριν is derived from προ, it would seem that πριν is used for verbs (which makes it an adverb) even when the verb is being used as a noun.
Where it is used before a noun+verb composite, the noun will be in the accusative case.

[Same Hakeem]

Colossians 3:1 says "the Messiah is seated at the right hand of God" and God says in Isaiah 44:6 "besides me there is no god". Therefore, Jesus being beside God disapproves Jesus so called deity because there is no god beside God according to Isaiah 44:6.

[Cow Poke]

Colossians 3:1 says "the Messiah is seated at the right hand of God" and God says in Isaiah 44:6 "besides me there is no god". Therefore, Jesus being beside God disapproves Jesus so called deity because there is no god beside God according to Isaiah 44:6.

You have a fundamental problem with the English language -- "besides me" is not the same as "beside me". One means "other than me".

[Same Hakeem]

Colossians 3:1 says "the Messiah is seated at the right hand of God"

According to Colossians 3:1, Jesus is at the right hand of God. Jesus cannot be God and be with God.

[Dan Zebiri]

You so conveniently forget, or is superbly ignorant about, hakeem, that Jesus Christ is the Logos and the Word of God in Christianity and this is also agreed by the quran.

In the Divine Holy Trinity, the Divine Word of God co-exists eternally with God Himself. To be at the "side of God" or internal to God is never an issue whatsoever for us.

Because God's Word and God Himself, can never be separated. That's clearly why the Lord Jesus Christ Himself declared that He "and the Father (ie.God) ARE ONE." in John 10:30, also in John 14:9-10:

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip?

He who has seen me has seen the Father.

How do you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.

So, when He ascended back to be with God the Father, Jesus Christ can be seated at God's "right hand" or He can continue to live in the Father because Jesus is God's living Word, they are inseparable. No problem for us whatsoever.

[Dan Zebiri]

You have a fundamental problem with the English language -- "besides me" is not the same as "beside me". One means "other than me".

Yes, indeed CowPoke, hakeem has a major problem understanding the English language. He can't seem to differentiate the two phrases above! The context is about having no gods "other than Me" ie.the true and living God.

The triune God is still ONE God, not a polytheistic deity. Muslims cannot wrap their heads around that, due to a severe mental block. Which does not, however diminish the reality of the Holy Trinity!

[Same Hakeem]

Yes, indeed CowPoke, hakeem has a major problem understanding the English language. He can't seem to differentiate the two phrases above! The context is about having no gods "other than Me" ie.the true and living God.

The triune God is still ONE God, not a polytheistic deity. Muslims cannot wrap their heads around that, due to a severe mental block. Which does not, however diminish the reality of the Holy Trinity!

Hi Dan,

Please explain how can God be one if "God" Jesus sits at the right hand of God according to Colossians 3:1.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, indeed CowPoke, hakeem has a major problem understanding the English language. He can't seem to differentiate the two phrases above! The context is about having no gods "other than Me" ie.the true and living God.

The triune God is still ONE God, not a polytheistic deity. Muslims cannot wrap their heads around that, due to a severe mental block. Which does not, however diminish the reality of the Holy Trinity!

Perhaps you can be more persuasive with him. I don't believe he's interested even the tiniest in actual answers. I'll be disengaging.

[tabibito]

Hi Dan,

Please explain how can God be one if "God" Jesus sits at the right hand of God according to Colossians 3:1.

Colossians 3:1, Mark 16:19, Romans 8:34, Hebrews 10:12, 1 Peter 3:22,
Acts 7:54-58 54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

You might ask why the Jews stoned Philip for saying that Jesus was not God. Simple answer is they wouldn't - Philip was claiming that Jesus was God's equal. According to the Jews the only equal of God was God. Old Testament records show that THE angel of God is God aka in one instance, Michael. There are of course other angels who are not termed THE angel of God.

[Same Hakeem]

Colossians 3:1, Mark 16:19, Romans 8:34, Hebrews 10:12, 1 Peter 3:22,
Acts 7:54-58 54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

You might ask why the Jews stoned Philip for saying that Jesus was not God. Simple answer is they wouldn't - Philip was claiming that Jesus was God's equal. According to the Jews the only equal of God was God. Old Testament records show that THE angel of God is God aka in one instance, Michael. There are of course other angels who are not termed THE angel of God.

I will refer to Christian commentaries on biblehub.com

Meanwhile, how can God be one when there two gods if "God" Jesus sits at the right hand of God? Please explain.

[Same Hakeem]

Colossians 3:1, Mark 16:19, Romans 8:34, Hebrews 10:12, 1 Peter 3:22,
Acts 7:54-58 54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

You might ask why the Jews stoned Philip for saying that Jesus was not God. Simple answer is they wouldn't - Philip was claiming that Jesus was God's equal. According to the Jews the only equal of God was God. Old Testament records show that THE angel of God is God aka in one instance, Michael. There are of course other angels who are not termed THE angel of God.

I think the answer lies in Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people". Please feel to free to share your thoughts.