Did Christians invent the Trinity-2

[farouk]

I think there should be a footnote everywhere something was omitted or it should be included in brackets. I like the NKJV. Like the author I have concerns that the Alexandrian texts are not the closest to the originals just because they are the oldest. But with almost any version the message still comes through. I can take The New World Translation and still show you the plan of salvation. As I heard one teacher put it, if you were going to send a radio signal to North Korea you wouldn't just send one strong signal, that would be easy to block. You send thousands of signals knowing they can't block them all. God anticipated hostile jamming. The Bible is written in such a way that even if a section gets omitted the message still comes through.

@RLT63 Interesting analogy there...........

 

[Matthias]

I think there should be a footnote everywhere something was omitted or it should be included in brackets. I like the NKJV. Like the author I have concerns that the Alexandrian texts are not the closest to the originals just because they are the oldest. But with almost any version the message still comes through. I can take The New World Translation and still show you the plan of salvation. As I heard one teacher put it, if you were going to send a radio signal to North Korea you wouldn't just send one strong signal, that would be easy to block. You send thousands of signals knowing they can't block them all. God anticipated hostile jamming. The Bible is written in such a way that even if a section gets omitted the message still comes through.

Good points.

What do you think about NKJV mistranslating Psalm 110:1?

 

[farouk]

I don't have a problem with using other translations.

@RLT63 Versions in other languages can be useful for comparison also....

 

[Mr E]

Let's look at it more closely.

In Matthew 24 we see Jesus having a conversation in which he asks the Jewish leaders (Pharisees in this case) about the Messiah that they are awaiting. Jews today are still waiting for this same Messiah, who they say MUST come from the house of David. It's the very reason Jesus asks them this question, and in doing so he quotes Psalm 110.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

I'll paraphrase--

Jesus-- The coming Messiah-- where will he come from?

Pharisees-- From the house (lineage) of David.

Jesus-- How can this be?- when David tells us that while in spirit, God said to 'the master' (the Messiah- David's master) -Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. The point is-- if the Messiah must be David's son, why does David refer to him as his master? -something a king would not call his descendant... ever. There is no way for a son to be a King's 'lord.' (master)

The text tells us that the question left them speechless. In Jewish thought, the coming Messiah would assume David's throne because he would be of David's line, but it would always be David's throne. In no manner of speaking would the coming Messiah take supremacy over David-- so why would David ever refer to that one as 'his master'? Their unspoken answer was-- he wouldn't. But he did. And they had no explanation.

What was Jesus' actual point? The translators (including the Lockman Foundation) would have you believe that Jesus was claiming to be God. This is why they insert that capital "L" -- the text does no such thing and doesn't have Jesus making any such claim. Jesus is pointing out that David knew that the Messiah (anointed one) was not 'him' but another. One from above. One God (the Father) called (David's master).

 

[farouk]

Let's look at it more closely.

In Matthew 24 we see Jesus having a conversation in which he asks the Jewish leaders (Pharisees in this case) about the Messiah that they are awaiting. Jews today are still waiting for this same Messiah, who they say MUST come from the house of David. It's the very reason Jesus asks them this question, and in doing so he quotes Psalm 110.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

I'll paraphrase--

Jesus-- The coming Messiah-- where will he come from?

Pharisees-- From the house (lineage) of David.

Jesus-- How can this be?- when David tells us that while in spirit, God said to 'the master' (David's master) -Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. The point is-- if the Messiah must be David's son, why does David refer to him as his master? -something a king would not call his descendant... ever. There is no way for a son to be a King's 'lord.' (master)

The text tells us that the question left them speechless. In Jewish thought, the coming Messiah would assume David's throne because he would be of David's line, but it would always be David's throne. In no manner of speaking would the coming Messiah take supremacy over David-- so why would David ever refer to that one as 'his master'? Their unspoken answer was-- he wouldn't. But he did. And they had no explanation.

What was Jesus' actual point? The translators (including the Lockman Foundation) would have you believe that Jesus was claiming to be God. This is why they insert that capital "L" -- the text does no such thing and doesn't have Jesus making any such claim. Jesus is pointing out that David knew that the Messiah (anointed one) was not 'him' but another. One from above. One God (the Father) called (David's master).

But who but the Son of God is entitled to sit at the right hand of God?

 

[Matthias]

@RLT63 Versions in other languages can be useful for comparison also....

That’s a great point.

I don’t read Spanish but on a whim I checked to see if the the Lockman Foundation publishes a Spanish translation. Yes, they do.

Do they repeat the mistranslation of Psalm 110:1 in their Spanish translation? Yes, they do.

Bible Gateway passage: Salmos 110:1 - La Biblia de las Américas

Someone should write to them about it. Hmm.

 

[Mr E]

But who but the Son of God is entitled to sit at the right hand of God?

No one. Not David. Not Jesus. Only the son. And the son is not flesh.

That's the point David was making-- David was "God's anointed." Messiah. Do you get that? But David (in spirit) saw that it wasn't really him-- that he even as the anointed King-- had a master, and that master was the one seated at the right hand of God.

 

[farouk]

No one. Not David. Not Jesus. Only the son. And the son is not flesh.

That's the point David was making-- David was "God's anointed." Messiah. Do you get that? But David (in spirit) saw that it wasn't really him-- that he even as the anointed King-- had a master, and that master was the one seated at the right hand of God.

The Lord Jesus is the Son of God and therefore entitled to sit at God's right hand.

Romans 1.4 makes it clear that the Lord Jesus was 'declared to be the Son of God with power'.

 

[DavidB]

That means absolutely nothing. How did it appear in Jerome's Latin Vulgate in the 4th century unless it was already in some Greek manuscripts, since Jerome used both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Secondly how could the passage make sense if this verse was missing? And William Barclay is not to be trusted. There are many other proofs that this was genuine Scripture, and I already posted that.

How did it appear in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate in the 4th century? According to both sources (there are more) it didn’t appear in the original Latin Vulgate. It was added later.
And I agree that even if it was in the original manuscript, it would no more prove the trinity than does John 10:30.

 

[Matthias]

That’s a great point.

I don’t read Spanish but on a whim I checked to see if the the Lockman Foundation publishes a Spanish translation. Yes, they do.

Do they repeat the mistranslation of Psalm 110:1 in their Spanish translation? Yes, they do.

Bible Gateway passage: Salmos 110:1 - La Biblia de las Américas

Someone should write to them about it. Hmm.

Bible Gateway lists 19 Spanish translations.

Salmos 110:1 - Bible Gateway

13 of the translations translate Psalm 110:1 incorrectly; 6 of the translations translate Psalm 110:1 correctly.

 

[RLT63]

Good points.

What do you think about NKJV mistranslating Psalm 110:1?

I think Mark must have read the same version or been mistranslated too
Mar 12:36

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

 

[Mr E]

The Lord Jesus is the Son of God and therefore entitled to sit at God's right hand.

Romans 1.4 makes it clear that the Lord Jesus was 'declared to be the Son of God with power'.

Romans 1 makes my point. That there is a son of God- spirit. That is the anointing. It has nothing to do with the flesh. David knew it, Jesus knew it.


Don't take my word for it. Peter explains it all again, very clearly-- referencing these same scriptures, putting it in exactly the same context-- David's understanding.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[RLT63]

No one. Not David. Not Jesus. Only the son. And the son is not flesh.

That's the point David was making-- David was "God's anointed." Messiah. Do you get that? But David (in spirit) saw that it wasn't really him-- that he even as the anointed King-- had a master, and that master was the one seated at the right hand of God.

Jesus is not The Son?

 

[Matthias]

I think Mark must have read the same version or been mistranslated too
Mar 12:36

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

All of the Hebrew manuscripts say the same thing in Psalm 110:1. Mark is probably reading from the Septuagint (the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek). The Septuagint agrees with the Hebrew. The translators are showing their bias again.

Why is the [unnamed] Messiah called “my lord,” in both Hebrew and Greek?

Yahweh is speaking prophetically to a superior human person.

 

[Mr E]

Jesus is not The Son?

Jesus is the son of David (of man) by lineage.

David, though he was quite literally God's Anointed (Messiah) knew that the true Messiah was spirit. In spirit he saw/heard God tell that one-- sit at my right hand. He recognized that he sat on the throne on earth, which was only a reflection of that heavenly realm and not the real thing, just as he was only a reflection of the true Anointed one-- the son of God, who is spirit.

The son of God is the Anointed.

So when you say-- Jesus is the Christ (the anointed) he was-- Just like David was. But David knew there was one in spirit-- the son of God- the Christ (anointed one) who was his master.

 

[RLT63]

All of the Hebrew manuscripts say the same thing in Psalm 110:1. Mark is probably reading from the Septuagint (the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek). The Septuagint agrees with the Hebrew. The translators are showing their bias again.

Why is the Messiah called “my lord,” in both Hebrew and Greek?

Yahweh is speaking prophetically to a superior human person.

The Masoretic Text and The Septuagint translate it as lord?

 

[Mr E]

The Masoretic Text and The Septuagint translate it as lord?

The Hebrew is written as lord (master) never, not anywhere-- in all of scripture, as Lord. It always refers to a human person and not another name or title for God.

 

[Matthias]

The Masoretic Text and The Septuagint translate it as lord?

The Hebrew and the Greek are correctly translated in English as “lord”.

David was not inspired to write “Yahweh says [or said] to my Yahweh”.

Yahweh is speaking to someone who is not Yahweh.

 

[RLT63]

All of the Hebrew manuscripts say the same thing in Psalm 110:1. Mark is probably reading from the Septuagint (the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek). The Septuagint agrees with the Hebrew. The translators are showing their bias again.

Why is the [unnamed] Messiah called “my lord,” in both Hebrew and Greek?

Yahweh is speaking prophetically to a superior human person.

Mar 12:35

¶
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
Mar 12:36

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Mar 12:37

David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

Is Jesus' point the same if this is translated as lord?

 

[Matthias]

Mar 12:35

¶
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
Mar 12:36

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Mar 12:37

David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

Is Jesus point the same if this is translated as lord?

Yes.