A Terrific TRINITY Passage of Scripture

[John Zain]

John 14:

[sup]16[/sup] And I (Jesus) will pray (to) the Father, and He will give you another Helper,
that He may abide with you forever —
[sup]17[/sup] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him
nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
[sup]18[/sup] I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
[sup]23[/sup] … and We (God) will come to him and make Our home with him.
[sup]26[/sup] But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

The Greek word here for ”another” is ”allos” meaning ”another of the same kind”.

 

[lawrance]

John 14:

[sup]16[/sup] And I (Jesus) will pray (to) the Father, and He will give you another Helper,
that He may abide with you forever —
[sup]17[/sup] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him
nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
[sup]18[/sup] I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
[sup]23[/sup] … and We (God) will come to him and make Our home with him.
[sup]26[/sup] But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

The Greek word here for ”another” is ”allos” meaning ”another of the same kind”.

Yes the Bible has it every where. i come across it all the time and have thought to wright it down to show people where it is. good on you John .

 

[Duckybill]

The plurality within the one true God:

Genesis 1:26 (ESV)
[sup]26 [/sup]Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

 

[John Zain]

The plurality within the one true God:
Genesis 1:26 (ESV)
[sup]26 [/sup]Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

Yes, but there's much controversy about it.
Apparently, there's proof that back in this time, some cultures used the "Royal We" ... the plural of Majesty.
So, there's the possibility that Moses was using it also.

 

[Duckybill]

Yes, but there's much controversy about it.
Apparently, there's proof that back in this time, some cultures used the "Royal We" ... the plural of Majesty.
So, there's the possibility that Moses was using it also.

So you don't have the answer. I do. You only offer speculation.

Matthew 28:19 (ESV)
[sup]19 [/sup]Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[belantos]

John 14:

[sup]16[/sup] And I (Jesus) will pray (to) the Father, and He will give you another Helper,
that He may abide with you forever —
[sup]17[/sup] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him
nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
[sup]18[/sup] I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
[sup]23[/sup] … and We (God) will come to him and make Our home with him.
[sup]26[/sup] But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

The Greek word here for ”another” is ”allos” meaning ”another of the same kind”.

You forgot to quote a few verses:
25 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
29 Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.
30 I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
31 but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.

Not a very good trinity passage afterall

The plurality within the one true God:

Genesis 1:26 (ESV)
[sup]26 [/sup]Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

Most evangelical scholars understand now that in the verse quoted God speaks in the counsel of angels. This is also noted in the NIV Study Bible footnote.

So you don't have the answer. I do. You only offer speculation.

Matthew 28:19 (ESV)
[sup]19 [/sup]Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The answer is, don't look for the trinity in the TaNaKh (abbreviated from the Hebrew names of the Torah, Prophets and Writings called OT in Christian bibles), it is not there.

 

[Duckybill]

Most evangelical scholars understand now that in the verse quoted God speaks in the counsel of angels. This is also noted in the NIV Study Bible footnote.

Are you saying the angels created us, not God?

The answer is, don't look for the trinity in the TaNaKh (abbreviated from the Hebrew names of the Torah, Prophets and Writings called OT in Christian bibles), it is not there.

I don't know of even one English translation that does not state "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in Matt 28:19.

 

[belantos]

So you don't have the answer. I do. You only offer speculation.

Matthew 28:19 (ESV)
[sup]19 [/sup]Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

There is a debate whether the above passage is original. I post a few notes here:

________________


The earliest references to this passage recorded before the Council of Nicaea indicate that the master commanded them to disciple all the nations "in his (singular) name". We read in Eusebius' text, for example: Go forth and disciple all the nations in *my* name teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. [Read D. Flusser, "The conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source", Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, vol. V, 1967, pp. 110-120] Also, we read in a Coptic text: Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in *my* name in every place. [See E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636]

As David Flusser writes, "...the command to baptize and the trinitarian formula are missing in all quotations of the passage from Matthew in the writings of Eusebius composed before the Council of Nicaea". [Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, p. 381] Eusebius uses the trinitarian formula only after the Council of Nicaea. Also, the later Didache mistakenly followed the variant text found only in Matthew's version.

It should be noted that every other reference made to the command to baptize (found in the rest of the New Testament scriptures) reads "in my name" or "in his name". All the Jewish witnesses instruct us to immerse in "his name" or "my name", rather than in "the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". [cf Acts 2.38; 8.16; 10.48; 19.5; 22.16; Rom. 6.3; and Gal. 3.27] Since the only variant text is found in Matthew's version, it is obvious that the later Trinitarian formula (found only after the Council of Nicaea) is not the original version.
_________________

 

[Duckybill]

There is a debate whether the above passage is original. I post a few notes here:

________________


The earliest references to this passage recorded before the Council of Nicaea indicate that the master commanded them to disciple all the nations "in his (singular) name". We read in Eusebius' text, for example: Go forth and disciple all the nations in *my* name teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. [Read D. Flusser, "The conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source", Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, vol. V, 1967, pp. 110-120] Also, we read in a Coptic text: Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in *my* name in every place. [See E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636]

As David Flusser writes, "...the command to baptize and the trinitarian formula are missing in all quotations of the passage from Matthew in the writings of Eusebius composed before the Council of Nicaea". [Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, p. 381] Eusebius uses the trinitarian formula only after the Council of Nicaea. Also, the later Didache mistakenly followed the variant text found only in Matthew's version.

It should be noted that every other reference made to the command to baptize (found in the rest of the New Testament scriptures) reads "in my name" or "in his name". All the Jewish witnesses instruct us to immerse in "his name" or "my name", rather than in "the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". [cf Acts 2.38; 8.16; 10.48; 19.5; 22.16; Rom. 6.3; and Gal. 3.27] Since the only variant text is found in Matthew's version, it is obvious that the later Trinitarian formula (found only after the Council of Nicaea) is not the original version.
_________________

See above.

 

[belantos]

Are you saying the angels created us, not God?

I don't know of even one English translation that does not state "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in Matt 28:19.

Not angels. God announced His intention in the heavenly court. Check the NIV Study Bible.

Are you saying the angels created us, not God?

I don't know of even one English translation that does not state "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in Matt 28:19.

Had it been written: "I shall make man," we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself.

See above.

Matthew 28:19 is spurious. The original was most likely the following:

'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.'

 

[Duckybill]

Not angels. God announced His intention in the heavenly court. Check the NIV Study Bible.

Had it been written: "I shall make man," we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself.

Contradiction.

Matthew 28:19 is spurious. The original was most likely the following:

[font="arial][size="3"]'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.'[/size][/font]

So all of our English translations are in error and you are right? Nah.

 

[belantos]

Contradiction.

So all of our English translations are in error and you are right? Nah.

The various translations follow the Greek manuscripts produced by various scholars, for example, the NA27. They have a very difficult job to compile the text out of the myriad of fragments, miniscules, etc. Often the choices they make is subconsciously influenced by the own theological stream they represent. For this reason they give much more weight to the Greek papyri than to ancient translations or various quotations.

The note I posted shows that Eusebius quoted a different ending of Matthew before Nicaea, and another afterwards. Or perhaps the modification was made as a result of Nicaea. Unfortunately we don't know the details.

 

[John Zain]

So you don't have the answer. I do. You only offer speculation.
Matthew 28:19 (ESV)
[sup]19 [/sup]Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

HELLO! ... I was referring only to Genesis 1:26.

 

[Duckybill]

So basically John Zain and belantos you are saying you are more expert in Hebrew and Greek than those who translated our English Bibles. Nah.

 

[belantos]

So basically John Zain and belantos you are saying you are more expert in Hebrew and Greek than those who translated our English Bibles. Nah.

That is not the point. The point is that reconstructing the original text is problematic and those who do it often have to choose between two equal options. And when they do, it is often theological bias that gets in the way.

Noone knows it all. Neither do I, but nor those who worked on the text.

For your information, the issue we deal with has nothing to do with translators, but textual criticism. It is the textual critic that tries to reproduce the original reading of the Hebrew and Greek text. Their work is guided by basic assumptions. In the case of the Greek text this assumption is that the Renewed Covenant scriptures were written in Greek. There is a growing consensus among scholars that this might not be so and the scriptures were actually translated from Hebrew originals. If that is the case, other ancient translations should be given much greater weight than at present, as well as quotations such as Eusebius shall be given greater credit.

 

[aspen]

That is not the point. The point is that reconstructing the original text is problematic and those who do it often have to choose between two equal options. And when they do, it is often theological bias that gets in the way.

Noone knows it all. Neither do I, but nor those who worked on the text.

For your information, the issue we deal with has nothing to do with translators, but textual criticism. It is the textual critic that tries to reproduce the original reading of the Hebrew and Greek text. Their work is guided by basic assumptions. In the case of the Greek text this assumption is that the Renewed Covenant scriptures were written in Greek. There is a growing consensus among scholars that this might not be so and the scriptures were actually translated from Hebrew originals. If that is the case, other ancient translations should be given much greater weight than at present, as well as quotations such as Eusebius shall be given greater credit.

I am interested in the rationale behind giving Eusebius greater credit. After reading his account of Church History and excusing him for the hyperbole common to the era in which he wrote; I still have to conclude that he went to great lengths to support Catholic doctrine - and I am Roman Catholic. I do find his writing valuable, but I think scholars have recommended the correct amount of caution in regards to his writings.

 

[belantos]

I am interested in the rationale behind giving Eusebius greater credit. After reading his account of Church History and excusing him for the hyperbole common to the era in which he wrote; I still have to conclude that he went to great lengths to support Catholic doctrine - and I am Roman Catholic. I do find his writing valuable, but I think scholars have recommended the correct amount of caution in regards to his writings.

Well, the first complete manuscript comes from the fourth century. There is nothing before it. There are fragments, translations and quotations.

When someone consistently quotes one version of the verse, then after the Council of Nicaea quotes another, longer form that actually reflect on the Council's decision, you suspect two things:

1. Eusebius had access to two kind of texts, but before the council he quoted only from one, because he believed that was correct. After the council he quoted from the other text because of the ruling of the council, which became a law in the empire.

2. He only had access to one text, but that text was officially modified after the council.

There might be myriads of other possibilities. Make your pick. But there is a reason for him starting quoting the longer, trinitarian version. I don't have the insight into that debate, it is quite possible that both readings co-existed for a long time (I am not sure what proof is there for it), but the longer one became universally accepted only after the council.

What is interesting is that according to the church fathers Matthew was translated from Hebrew with great difficulties (it appears Mark was used as a template), and the only Hebrew version we know of, "The Gospel of the Hebrews", used by the Ebionites, lacks the birth narrative and has the shorter version of the last verse of Matthew.

 

[Duckybill]

That is not the point. The point is that reconstructing the original text is problematic and those who do it often have to choose between two equal options. And when they do, it is often theological bias that gets in the way.

Noone knows it all. Neither do I, but nor those who worked on the text.

For your information, the issue we deal with has nothing to do with translators, but textual criticism. It is the textual critic that tries to reproduce the original reading of the Hebrew and Greek text. Their work is guided by basic assumptions. In the case of the Greek text this assumption is that the Renewed Covenant scriptures were written in Greek. There is a growing consensus among scholars that this might not be so and the scriptures were actually translated from Hebrew originals. If that is the case, other ancient translations should be given much greater weight than at present, as well as quotations such as Eusebius shall be given greater credit.

You're still saying that you are more expert than all who translated our English Bibles. I say you're not. Your denial of Jesus/God and Hell are common characteristics of religious cults without salvation. In other words your doctrines are anti-Christ, as someone else has already pointed out. You are challenging our English Bibles. You don't have that authority.

 

[belantos]

You're still saying that you are more expert than all who translated our English Bibles. I say you're not. Your denial of Jesus/God and Hell are common characteristics of religious cults without salvation. In other words your doctrines are anti-Christ, as someone else has already pointed out. You are challenging our English Bibles. You don't have that authority.

I suggest you do your own research. I spent the last 16 years of my life to do mine.

The largest cult in the world calls every other sects cults. It is always the winner that writes history. But that history might not be true.

 

[Duckybill]

I suggest you do your own research. I spent the last 16 years of my life to do mine.

The largest cult in the world calls every other sects cults. It is always the winner that writes history. But that history might not be true.

And "the largest cult in the world" is?