en.wikipedia.org
Note: The Son is not in the bosom of the Father in the image file. This is a tripartite, (three part), God: for one without the other two is not fully God, for the fourth God in the center is the only full God. The Son is not the Father, nor is he in the Father, and it is the same for all three lesser Gods to the fourth God in the center. Moreover the Father is reduced to equality with the Son by the image conception itself, and likewise all three outer perimeter Gods are equal with each other, and only when they are together as the fourth God in the center are they fully God. It's essentially God cut into three slices, tripartite.
Moreover, according to the Hebrew conception of the Father, the only way that one might come close in trying to explain the Father in picto-graphic form, (which is forbidden anyway), would be to imagine the white or clear background as extending in all directions from the point of the viewer forever, not just according to the square plane of the drawing, but in all directions, forever. The Scutum Fidei, (Trinity Shield), is the earliest known depiction attempt at describing the Trinity, and as we all know, it continues to be used to this day: but it came from the mindset the early Greco-Roman church.
The Hebrew conception of the Almighty Father:
Deuteronomy 10:14 KJV
14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
1 Kings 8:27 KJV (2 Chr 6:18)
27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
Psalm 139:5-8 KJV
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, [Sheol] behold, thou art there.
The heavens and heaven of heavens cannot contain the Father, (Deut 10:14, 1Kngs 8:27).
There is nowhere a man can go where the Father is not there, (Psa 139:7-8).
John 1:1 (T/R, N/A, W/H, BYZ all agree)
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον Θ̅Ν και Θ̅C ην ο λογος
Here we have the preposition
pros in an accusative case context, (
ton Theon), and it changes slightly in meaning with a change in case.
1. forward to, i.e. toward
2. (genitive case) the side of, i.e. pertaining to
3. (dative case) by the side of, i.e. near to
4. (accusative case, usually) the place, time, occasion, or respect (which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated)
Greek/4314
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4314: πρός
πρός, a preposition, equivalent to the epic προτί, from πρό and the adverbial suffix τί (cf. the German vor ... bin (Curtius, § 381)); it is joined
I.
with the accusative, to, toward, Latinad, denoting direction toward a thing,
or position and state looking toward a thing (Winer's Grammar, § 49 h., p. 404 (378)); it is used
Then Thayer gives a large list of ways and contexts in which
pros is used, and the first is under the title of the number 1, (a numerical-alphabetical list), and we skip then over all of section 1, and come to section 2a, where our usage in both John 1:1 and 1John 1:2 are found, (same accusative context in both passages).
2. it is used of close proximity — the idea of direction, though not entirely lost, being more or less weakened;
a. answering to our at or by (German an); after verbs of fastening, adhering, moving (to): δεδέσθαι πρός τήν θύραν, Mark 11:4; προσκολλᾶσθαι, Mark 10:7 R G Tr (in marginal reading brackets); Ephesians 5:31 R G WH text; προσκόπτειν, Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:11; κεῖσθαι, equivalent to to be brought near to, Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9 ((cf. 2 Macc. 4:33)); τιθέναι, Acts 3:2; (Acts 4:37 Tdf. (others παρά)); add, βεβλησθαι, Luke 16:20; τά πρός τήν θύραν, the forecourt (see θύρα, a.), Mark 2:2; εἶναι πρός τήν θάλασσαν (properly, toward the sea (A. V. by the sea)), Mark 4:1; θερμαίνεσθαι πρός τό φῶς, turned to the light (R. V. in the light), Mark 14:54; καθῆσθαι πρός τό φῶς, Luke 22:56; πρός τό μνημεῖον, John 20:11 Rec.; cf. Fritzsche on Mark, p. 201f
b. equivalent to (Latinapud)
with,
with the accusative of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc.
(which require one to be conceived of as always turned toward one), cf. Fritzsche as above: after εἶναι, Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3; Mark 9:19; Mark 14:49; Luke 9:41;
John 1:1; 1 John 1:2;
Understand both the meaning and the implications, and ask yourself why Thayer would say,
"which require one to be conceived of as always turned toward one". Why on earth would he say
one always turned toward one??? The reality should be a shock, yet most seem to have no qualms about it or try to explain it away when it is brought up, but this is subterfuge. Thayer is avoiding saying
one toward
another because there is no
another in Trinity jargon, for 1+1+1=1, and if he said
one turned toward another or
one turned toward the other then the issue has more chance of becoming inflammatory in the Trinitarian mindset because it is so blatantly obvious what this means: two Gods, side by side, or next to each other, and even more specifically according to their own grammar rules, facing each other and outside of each other, and that's exactly what we see in the Trinity Shield image file herein above.
