Did Christians invent the Trinity-2

[Matthias]

As with most Bible reading plans, this one may be used with any translation the reader desires to use.

Yesterday’s readings following the plan were: 1 Chronicles 11; Ezekiel 24; Luke 21.

Today’s readings following the plan is: 1 Chronicles 12; Ezekiel 25; Luke 22.

Tomorrow’s readings following the plan will be: 1 Chronicles 13 & 14; Ezekiel 26; Luke 23.

Once through the Old Testament and twice through the New Testament with this plan.

An experiment from a selection in today’s reading; first with NASB95 -

“And they all said, ‘Are You the Son of God, then?’ And He said to them, ‘Yes, I am.”

(Luke 22:70)

Then with something else -

“‘And they all said, ‘Are you God the Son, then?’ And he said to them, ‘Yes, I AM.’”

(Luke 22:70)

Any complaints, trinitarians? Did I do right by you?

How about you @RLT63?

P.S.

For anyone interested in seeing what the full reading plan looks like, here’s a link to it.

Bible Reading Plan

No objections having been heard, the experiment is concluded.

Survey of Bible Gateway says - “God the Son” = 0.

Luke 22:70 - Bible Gateway

The mystery rendering I provided was an intentional mistranslation. Trinitarian readers should have spotted it and protested loudly, but they didn’t. I gave them what they wanted to hear. I inserted their thinking, their language, their theology into a text - a context - where that wasn’t the thinking, wasn’t the language, wasn’t the theology of the historical time period.

I created a 1st century fantasy world. In doing so, I recreated the historical actors - all of them - and made them something which they weren’t. I told a story … I didn’t tell their story. I didn’t tell the story. I told a story which was pleasant sounding in the ears of a targeted audience.

 

[RLT63]

There are letters for vowels in Greek.

There are no letters for vowels in Hebrew; letters are only for consonants. Vowels in written Hebrew, when used, are symbols.

Translators had to put it in readable English. I have an analytical literal translation of the New Testament and the order of the words makes it difficult for casual reading. It is good to compare what the literal translation of the Greek is but not for reading through.

 

[Matthias]

Translators had to put it in readable English. I have an analytical literal translation of the New Testament and the order of the words makes it difficult for casual reading. It is good to compare what the literal translation of the Greek is but not for reading through.

You posted an article that discussed “readable” but “not worth reading” translations. The author of that article made a good point.

 

[RLT63]

You posted an article that discussed “readable” but “not worth reading” translations. The author of that article made a good point.

I got the impression that you didn't care for his conclusions.

 

[Matthias]

I got the impression that you didn't care for his conclusions.

Agreement with some doesn’t require agreement with all.

 

[Matthias]

Son of God or God the Son. Does it matter?

“A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. ‘Mercy, mercy!’ he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. ’Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,’ the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames. …

Although we essentially have the same in the conversion of the repentant thief (Lk. 23:42, 43 cf. Lk. 18:13) and the Scripture ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’ (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13), Farel still reckoned Servetus an unsaved man at the end of his life: ’Farel noted that Servetus might have been saved by shifting the position of the adjective and confessing Christ as the Eternal Son rather than as the Son of the Eternal God.’”

(Dan Corner, “Michael Servetus - His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin”)

Bold is mine.

Michael Servetus His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin

 

[RLT63]

No objections having been heard, the experiment is concluded.

Survey of Bible Gateway says - “God the Son” = 0.

Luke 22:70 - Bible Gateway

The mystery rendering I provided was an intentional mistranslation. Trinitarian readers should have spotted it and protested loudly, but they didn’t. I gave them what they wanted to hear. I inserted their thinking, their language, their theology into a text - a context - where that wasn’t the thinking, wasn’t the language, wasn’t the theology of the historical time period.

I created a 1st century fantasy world. In doing so, I recreated the historical actors - all of them - and made them something which they weren’t. I told a story … I didn’t tell their story. I didn’t tell the story. I told a story which was pleasant sounding in the ears of a targeted audience.

I didn't object because I got the point you were making. The verse doesn't say I AM. It was obvious

 

[Matthias]

I didn't object because I got the point you were making. The verse doesn't say I AM. It was obvious

You should have objected because I intentionally mistranslated the Greek. The verse doesn’t say “God the Son”.

The verse does say “I am”.

In my mistranslation, I have the Jews in the Council asking a question which they didn’t ask and, even worse, Jesus saying that he is what they didn’t ask in their question.

Jesus didn’t say, “I am God the Son.”

Jesus said, “I am the Son of God.”

 

[RLT63]

You should have objected because I intentionally mistranslated the Greek. The verse doesn’t say “God the Son”.

“I am” is what the verse says.

Okay I didn't see that one I thought you were talking about capitalizing I Am. There is no verse I know of that says God the Son

 

[Matthias]

Okay I didn't see that one I thought you were talking about capitalizing I Am.

It was a side point.

Why didn’t you see the first one? (The point of my experiment is that a trinitarian wouldn’t.)

There is no verse I know of that says God the Son

You’re right. Why isn’t there a verse that says “God the Son”?

 

[RLT63]

You should have objected because I intentionally mistranslated the Greek. The verse doesn’t say “God the Son”.

The verse does say “I am”.

In my mistranslation, I have the Jews in the Council asking a question which they didn’t ask and, even worse, Jesus saying that he is what they didn’t ask in their question.

Jesus didn’t say, “I am God the Son.”

Jesus said, “I am the Son of God.”

I missed something. I'll have to go back and find your post.

 

[Matthias]

I missed something. I'll have to go back and find your post.

It is post #123.

 

[RLT63]

Son of God or God the Son. Does it matter?

“A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. ‘Mercy, mercy!’ he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. ’Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,’ the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames. …

Although we essentially have the same in the conversion of the repentant thief (Lk. 23:42, 43 cf. Lk. 18:13) and the Scripture ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’ (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13), Farel still reckoned Servetus an unsaved man at the end of his life: ’Farel noted that Servetus might have been saved by shifting the position of the adjective and confessing Christ as the Eternal Son rather than as the Son of the Eternal God.’”

(Dan Corner, “Michael Servetus - His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin”)

Bold is mine.

Michael Servetus His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin

What a horrible story. I never agreed with Calvin but didn't know he had such power.

 

[RLT63]

As with most Bible reading plans, this one may be used with any translation the reader desires to use.

Yesterday’s readings following the plan were: 1 Chronicles 11; Ezekiel 24; Luke 21.

Today’s readings following the plan is: 1 Chronicles 12; Ezekiel 25; Luke 22.

Tomorrow’s readings following the plan will be: 1 Chronicles 13 & 14; Ezekiel 26; Luke 23.

Once through the Old Testament and twice through the New Testament with this plan.

An experiment from a selection in today’s reading; first with NASB95 -

“And they all said, ‘Are You the Son of God, then?’ And He said to them, ‘Yes, I am.”

(Luke 22:70)

Then with something else -

“‘And they all said, ‘Are you God the Son, then?’ And he said to them, ‘Yes, I AM.’”

(Luke 22:70)

Any complaints, trinitarians? Did I do right by you?

How about you @RLT63?

P.S.

For anyone interested in seeing what the full reading plan looks like, here’s a link to it.

Bible Reading Plan

I totally missed it.

 

[RLT63]

It is post #123.

I noticed the I Am but missed God the Son

 

[RLT63]

It was a side point.

Why didn’t you see the first one? (The point of my experiment is that a trinitarian wouldn’t.)



You’re right. Why isn’t there a verse that says “God the Son”?

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 3:16 - King James Version.

 

[Matthias]

I noticed the I Am but missed God the Son

Why did you miss God the Son?

I can tell you why I missed it when I was a trinitarian.

 

[Matthias]

I totally missed it.

Trinitarians almost always do. The question is why do they “totally” miss it?

 

[RLT63]

Trinitarians almost always do. The question is why do they “totally” miss it?

I've seen something similar where there is a whole paragraph of misspelled words but the first and last letters are correct and most people can read it. They used it when showing how a Doctor checked a label and still used the wrong medication

 

[Matthias]

I've seen something similar where there is a whole paragraph of misspelled words but the first and last letters are correct and most people can read it. They used it when showing how a Doctor checked a label and still used the wrong medication

Is that why you missed it? Do you think that’s why other trinitarians miss it?