The trinity and it’s false theology.

The trinity and it’s false theology.

You may be surprised to find out that the trinity doctrine does not accept Jesus Christ.  It omits Christ from its doctrine and promotes a false gospel that ‘three separate persons make up God’ which is not found in Any Bible. Trinitarians profess that John 1:1 explains their theology of ‘three separate persons ’. It does not. Therefore, it is not unusual to come across an apostate trinitarian who will deny and oppose the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Trinitarians proclaim Jesus is co-equal to his God while Jesus himself proclaims "the Father is Greater than I am." (John 14:28) When Jesus Christ stated that ‘God is a Spirit’ in (John 4:24) trinitarians proclaim that Christ under the inspiration of Holy Spirit somehow mis-spoken because their doctrine teaches that God is made up of three separate Persons which is never cited in any scripture.  In John 17:1 Jesus addresses his Father in prayer, he said: “Father,… and in John 17:3  he states, “This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the only true God” Was Jesus addressing God the Father or the trinity of three separate persons?

Trinitarians proclaim Jesus was not addressing the trinity itself, but God the Father.  Wouldn’t that prove that the trinity to be a False God?  “He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

As Jesus continue his teachings about God, he states, “God is a Spirit, and those worshipping Him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)  Notice those worshiping HIM is in singular?  Not ‘us’ ‘we’ they’ ‘them’ or even ME.  Since trinitarians admit that the trinity is not God itself, aren’t trinitarians worshipping ‘gods’?  None of them worship God the Father alone who Jesus claims to be the only true God in (John 17:3)  Jesus Christ continues, “Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship HIM.” (John 4:23)

If you take a closer look at the trinity doctrine, NONE of the Persons have a NAME.  It’s a Generic Formula borrowed from Pagan Worship. Trinitarians shout and yell that, Jesus is God.  But the trinity itself simply doesn’t give witness about Jesus Christ. When asked to show the doctrine they often turn red and say that I must simply believe them.  Then I ask, since the trinity doesn’t state that Jesus is God, show one scripture that states that. They hee and haw in frustration and begin to taunt and curse not able to find a single verse. You won’t find God the Son or God the Holy Spirit in the Bible because it simply isn’t.  There is a HUGE difference from God the Son and the Son of God.  If Jesus is the son of God, then whose Son is he?  The trinity doesn’t have three sons does it?

Jesus is not the only person to give witness about his God and Father.  The Apostles would greet one another with a similar phrase.  “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Peter 1:3)   The trinity omits the Name of Christ and refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.  Matter of fact, here is what the scriptures state about those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7)

In Ancient times, the trinity was symbolized by three snakes, each snake would chase its own tail looking like the number 666.   “And it was permitted to give breath to the image of the wild beast, so that the image of the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who refuse to worship the image of the wild beast.” (Rev 13:15

“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins,” (Hebrews 10:26)

Read more...

Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • @BroRando November 1 You may be surprised to find out that the trinity doctrine does not accept Jesus Christ. It omits Christ from its doctrine and promotes a false gospel that ‘three separate persons make up God’ which is not found in Any Bible. 

    Curious how you would describe Tri-Unity (trinity) doctrine ? This thread started with assumed Tri-Unity (trinity) doctrinal understanding.

    Curious about your human trinity doctrine source(s) ?

    FWIW: many humans have written variety of Tri-Unity (trinity) doctrines over the centuries. Honestly not know if/how my human understanding of Scripture aligns with historical multitude of human writers so do not use the label "trinitarian" to describe myself. Deuteronomy 6:4 has singular and plural words (along with three names) so my God description is One plural unique God. I identify as being a follower of "The Way" from John 14:6 => Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


    Who is "The First and The Last" ? How truthful are the words spoken by Jesus in Revelation 22:12-16 ?

    Isaiah 44:6-7 LEB => Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me. And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming.

    Revelation 22:12-16 LEB => “Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to repay each one according to what his deeds are! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Blessed are the ones who wash their robes, so that their authority will be over the tree of life and they may enter into the city through the gates. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral people and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and who practices falsehood. “I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”


    Did the Apostle Paul describe Jesus incorrectly in Philippians 2:5-11, especially existing in the form of אלהים God ?

    Philippians 2:5-11 LEB (with Hebrew words for Jewish usual translation of יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God in LXX) => Think this in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of אלהים God, did not consider being equal with אלהים God something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, by becoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, that is, death on a cross. Therefore also אלהים God exalted him and graciously granted him the name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is יהוה Lord, to the glory of אלהים God the Father.

    Describing pre-existing spiritual form of Jesus is challenging: Jesus experienced אלהים God's Glory (John 17:5) and אלהים God's Love (John 17:24) before אלהים God created physical realm out of nothing. Humanly not know how to describe One plural אלהים God spiritual essence that existed before physical creation, which includes three names in Deuteronomy 6:4 יהוה אלהינו יהוה (We or our is God 1st person plural pronoun suffix)


    יהוה Jesus humbly being in the form of a slave is the context for farewell discourse in upper room at the last supper (Pesach) in John 14:1-31 LEB (with Hebrew word for Jewish usual translation of יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God in LXX)  => “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in אלהים God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places; but if not, I would have told you, because I am going away to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, so that where I am, you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “יהוה Lord, we do not know where you are going. How are we able to know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you know him and have seen him.” Philip said to him, “יהוה Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Am I with you so long a time and you have not known me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in me, the works that I am doing he will do also, and he will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, in order that he may be with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it does not see him or know him. You know him, because he resides with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you. Yet a little time and the world will see me no longer, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. The one who has my commandments and keeps them—that one is the one who loves me. And the one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “יהוה Lord, why is it that you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will take up residence with him. The one who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me. These things I have spoken to you while residing with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name—that one will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything that I said to you. “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you—not as the world gives, I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. You have heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no power over me. But so that the world may know that I love the Father, and just as the Father has commanded me, thus I am doing. Get up, let us go from here!


    Was Jesus incorrect to command disciples to be ye believing in me (Jesus) the same as be ye believing in God ?

    πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε (John 14:1 SBLGNT words spoken by Jesus to disciples)

    πιστεύετε - to believe - verb, present, active, indicative, 2nd person, plural "Be ye believing" (present = continuous action in present time)

    εἰς - in - preposition

    τὸν - the - article, accusative, singular, masculine (accusative case shows object of preposition εἰς)

    θεόν, - God - noun, accusative, singular, masculine (grammatical case, number, gender agrees with article)

    καὶ - also - adverb/particle, emphatic

    εἰς - in - preposition

    ἐμὲ - me - pronoun, personal, 1st person, accusative, singular (accusative case shows object of preposition εἰς)

    πιστεύετε - to believe: verb, present, active, indicative, 2nd person, plural "Be ye believing" (present = continuous action in present time)




    Faithlife Corporation is offering Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions (Three Crucial Questions) for Free in November 2021.

    Despite the common use of the phrase Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, many Christians and plenty of nonbelievers lack an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. This often is a barrier to faith or growth, but one that can be overcome when explored openly and thoroughly. The Trinity has much to teach us about the essence of God and our relationships with one another.

    In Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions, Millard J. Erickson demonstrates the biblical foundation, logic, and importance of the Trinity as he answers three questions:

    * Is the doctrine of the Trinity biblical?

    * Does the doctrine of the Trinity make sense?

    * Does the doctrine of the Trinity make any difference?

    Making Sense of the Trinity is perfect for scholars, pastors, students, and theologians. The Logos edition of this volume is fully searchable and easily accessible. Scripture passages link directly to your preferred translation, and important theological concepts link to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wealth of other resources in your digital library.

    Introduction begins:

    To those outside the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Trinity seems a very strange teaching indeed. It seems to violate logic, for it claims that God is three and yet that he is one. How can this be? 

     Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 13.

    CD discussion A SCRIPTURE based discussion of the Trinity includes reply by @Wolfgang on November 1

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 1 If One Holy God had inspired only grammatically singular words to describe One Holy God, then my faith belief about One Holy God would agree with you. One Holy God inspired mixture of singular and plural words to describe One plural unified God.

    @Wolfgang November 1 Well, you are limiting God to your limited understanding of language ... and because your knowledge of figures of speech and certain use of words for particular emphasis is lacking, you put God in your "one plural unified God" box.

    @Wolfgang November 1 What you don't seem to realize that your words "one unified plural" actually show that you have plural God-persons/voices ... but NOT one God. Your God is a team, a family, a group, a choir, etc.

    @Wolfgang does not believe three voices of אלהים God in Scripture are ONE plural unique אלהים God. @Wolfgang cannot describe concept of Tri-unity correctly (due to belief of Tri-Unity being impossible).



    Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (2013) by Millard J. Erickson is available for purchase. My Logos library has Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (1998), whose 16th chapter (out of 60) has:

    Chapter Summary

    The Bible does not explicitly teach the trinitarian view of God, but the teachings that God is one and that three persons are God clearly imply this view. Christianity is the only major religion that makes this claim about God. Numerous attempts have been made to understand this profound truth. Some have led to distortions of this very important doctrine. While we may never fully comprehend this difficult doctrine, there are analogies that can help us understand it more fully. Properly understood, this doctrine has profound practical implications for the Christian life.

    Study Questions

    • Why is the doctrine of the Trinity so unique among the various religions of the world?

    • Why does forming a position on the Trinity require all the skills involved in systematic theology?

    • Explain the biblical evidence for the deity of three.

    • In which book of the Bible do we find the strongest evidence of a coequal Trinity? Explain why this is so.

    • How do the various historical views of the Trinity influence society today? How may they be disputed?

    • What are the essential elements of the doctrine of the Trinity? How do they help our understanding and deepen our faith?

    • What do analogies contribute to our understanding?

    In the doctrine of the Trinity, we encounter one of the truly distinctive doctrines of Christianity. Among the religions of the world, the Christian faith is unique in making the claim that God is one and yet there are three who are God. Although it seems on the surface to be a self-contradictory doctrine and is not overtly or explicitly stated in Scripture, nevertheless, devout minds have been led to it as they sought to do justice to the witness of Scripture.

    The doctrine of the Trinity is crucial for Christianity. It is concerned with who God is, what he is like, how he works, and how he is to be approached. Moreover, the question of the deity of Jesus Christ, which has historically been a point of great tension, is very much wrapped up with our understanding of the Trinity.

    The position we take on the Trinity will also answer several questions of a practical nature. Whom are we to worship—Father only, Son, Holy Spirit, or the Triune God? To whom are we to pray? Is the work of each to be considered in isolation from the work of the others, or may we think of the atoning death of Jesus as somehow the work of the Father as well? Should the Son be thought of as the Father’s equal in essence, or should he be relegated to a somewhat lesser status?

    Formulating a position on the Trinity is a genuine exercise in systematic theology, calling forth all the skills discussed in the opening chapters. Since the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture, we will have to put together complementary themes, draw inferences from biblical teachings, and decide on a particular type of conceptual vehicle to express our understanding. In addition, because the formulation of the doctrine has had a long and complex history, we will have to evaluate past constructions against the background of their period and culture, and to enunciate the doctrine in a way that will be similarly appropriate for our age.

    We will begin our study of the Trinity by examining the biblical basis of the doctrine, since this is fundamental to all else that we do here. Then we will examine various historical statements of the doctrine, noting particular emphases, strengths, and weaknesses. Finally, we will formulate our own statement for today, attempting to illustrate and clarify its tenets in such a way as to make it meaningful for our time.

     Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 346–348.


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • Curious how you would describe Tri-Unity (trinity) doctrine ? This thread started with assumed Tri-Unity (trinity) doctrinal understanding.

    More fancy word creations ("tri-unity") to muddy waters and put up a smoke screen behind which to hide THREE Gods.

    You neglect that already just the term UNITY plainly is NOT the same as ONE, but instead clearly indicates more than one who are united in some manner (are thinking the same, are part of a team, a group, etc.

    All your many words are hot air and only prove the truth that there is NO Trinity or "Tri-Unity" God mentioned or spoken of in the Bible.

  • @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 2 Curious how you would describe Tri-Unity (trinity) doctrine ? This thread started with assumed Tri-Unity (trinity) doctrinal understanding.

    @Wolfgang November 2 More fancy word creations ("tri-unity") to muddy waters and put up a smoke screen behind which to hide THREE Gods.

    Appreciate your confirmation that you believe Tri-Unity (trinity) is impossible so you see tritheism (THREE gods) per your faith belief frame of reference.


    @Wolfgang November 2 You neglect that already just the term UNITY plainly is NOT the same as ONE, but instead clearly indicates more than one who are united in some manner (are thinking the same, are part of a team, a group, etc.

    John 10:30 "The Father and I are One" was understood by Jewish religious leaders as Jesus saying "The Father and I are One יהוה Lord" (UNITY) as shown in John 10:33 => The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be אלהים God!”

    Bible Search for <Lemma = lbs/he/אֶחָד> in Lexham Hebrew Bible finds 739 verses (range of meaning appears in translation: One, first, certain, ...), which includes Deuteronomy 6:4 and Genesis 2:24 LEB => Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife, and they shall be as one flesh.


    Dictionary entry on macOS Big Sur 11.6.1

    trin·i·ty| ˈtrinədē | 

    noun (plural trinities) 

    (the Trinity or the Holy Trinity) the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

    • a group of three people or things: the wine was the first of a trinity of three excellent vintages

    • the state of being three: God is said to be trinity in unity

    ORIGIN 

    Middle English: from Old French trinite, from Latin trinitas ‘triad’, from trinus ‘threefold’ (see trine).


    @Wolfgang November 2 All your many words are hot air and only prove the truth that there is NO Trinity or "Tri-Unity" God mentioned or spoken of in the Bible.

    Searching All Bibles (1,023) in my Logos Library for trinity finds one result:

    Acts 2:22-24 The New Testament: An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest => Men, Israelites. Hear these words at once. Jesus, the Nazarene, a man who has been demonstrated to you by God to be that which He claims to be, this demonstration taking the form of miracles that show the power of God, and miracles that are a startling, imposing, amazement-awakening portent, and miracles that have for their purpose the attestation of the divine mission of the one who performs them, which miracles God performed through His intermediate agency in your midst even as you yourselves know positively; this One, having been delivered up by the counsel of God which [in the council held by the Trinity] had decided upon His destiny, even by the foreordination of God which is that act fixing His destiny, by wicked hands you crucified and killed, whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death because it was not possible for Him to be mastered by it.

    Bible Seach for Unity in LEB finds:

    Psalm 133:1 LEB => Look, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity.

    Zechariah 11:7 LEB => And I shepherded the flock doomed to slaughter, even the afflicted of the flock. I took two staffs, one I called Kindness, and the other I called Unity, and I shepherded the flock.

    Zechariah 11:14 LEB => Then I broke my second staff Unity to break the family ties between Judah and Israel.

    Ephesians 4:3 LEB => being eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;

    Ephesians 4:13 LEB => until we all reach the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to a measure of the maturity of the fullness of Christ,


    Ephesians 4:1-32 LEB (with Hebrew words for Jewish usual translation of יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God in LXX)  => Therefore I, the prisoner in the יהוה Lord, exhort you to live in a manner worthy of the calling with which you were called: with all humility and gentleness, with patience, putting up with one another in love, being eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit (just as also you were called with one hope of your calling), one יהוה Lord, one faith, one baptism, one אלהים God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all. Now to each one of us was given this grace, according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, “Ascending on high he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men.” Now “he ascended,” what is it, except that he also descended to the lower regions of the earth? The one who descended himself is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, in order that he might fill all things. And he himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all reach the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of אלהים God, to a mature man, to a measure of the maturity of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed about by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching, by the trickery of people, by craftiness with reference to the scheming of deceit. But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow into him with reference to all things, who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined together and held together by every supporting ligament, according to the working by measure of each single part, the growth of the body makes for the building up of itself in love. This therefore I say and testify in the יהוה Lord, that you no longer walk as the Gentiles walk: in the futility of their mind, being darkened in understanding, alienated from the life of אלהים God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart, who, becoming callous, gave themselves over to licentiousness, for the pursuit of all uncleanness in greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard about him, and you were taught by him (just as truth is in Jesus), that you take off, according to your former way of life, the old man, who is being destroyed according to deceitful desires, be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man (in accordance with אלהים God), who is created in righteousness and holiness from the truth. Therefore, putting aside the lie, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, because we are members of one another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun set on your anger, nor give place to the devil. The one who steals must steal no longer, but instead must labor, working with his own hands what is good, so that he may have something to share with the one who has need. No rotten word must proceed from your mouth, but only something good for the building up of the need, in order that it may give grace to those who hear, and do not grieve the Holy Spirit of אלהים God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. All bitterness, and rage, and wrath, and clamor, and abusive speech, must be removed from you, together with all wickedness. Become kind toward one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as also אלהים God in Christ has forgiven you.

    If believe Christ is NOT unified in One God (Jesus cannot be God), how can אלהים God in Christ forgive sin against אלהים God ?

    If believe Christ (Messiah) is unified in One plural אלהים God, then immensely Thankful for אלהים God in Christ can forgive sin against אלהים God.


    Zechariah 11:4-17 LEB => Thus says יהוה Yahweh my אלהים God: “Shepherd the flock doomed to slaughter. The ones buying them kill them and go unpunished, and the ones selling them say, ‘Blessed be יהוה Yahweh, for I have become rich.’ Their own shepherds have no compassion for them. For I will no longer have compassion on the inhabitants of the land,” declares יהוה Yahweh. “Look, I am going to cause humankind to fall, each into the hand of his neighbor, and into the hand of his king; and they will devastate the land, and I will not deliver anyone from their hand.” And I shepherded the flock doomed to slaughter, even the afflicted of the flock. I took two staffs, one I called Kindness, and the other I called Unity, and I shepherded the flock. And I got rid of three shepherds in one month, for I grew impatient with them, and they also became tired of me. So I said, “I will not shepherd you! The one dying will die, and the one to be destroyed will be destroyed. And the ones remaining, let them devour the flesh of each other.” And I took my staff Kindness and broke it, to break my covenant that I had made with all the peoples. And it was broken on that day. Then the afflicted of the flock, the ones who were watching me, knew that it was the word of יהוה Yahweh. And I said to them, “If it seems right to you, give me my wages, but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out my wages, thirty silver shekels. And יהוה Yahweh said to me, “Throw it to the potter,” this noble price at which I was valued by them!” So I took the thirty silver shekels and I threw them to the potter in the house of יהוה Yahweh. Then I broke my second staff Unity to break the family ties between Judah and Israel. And יהוה Yahweh said to me, “Take again the implements of a foolish shepherd. For look, I am raising up a shepherd in the land who will not attend to the ones that are perishing; he will not seek the young man, he will not heal the ones that are crushed and he will not sustain the healthy ones; he will devour the flesh of the fattened ones and tear apart even their hoofs. “Woe, my worthless shepherd who deserts the flock! May a sword fall on his arm and on his right eye! May his arm wither completely and his right eye be utterly blinded!”


    Matthew 27:3-10 LEB => Then when Judas, the one who had betrayed him, saw that he had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” And throwing the silver coins into the temple he departed. And he went away and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver coins and said, “It is not permitted to put them into the temple treasury, because it is blood money.” And after taking counsel, they purchased with them the Potter’s Field, for a burial place for strangers. (For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood until today.) Then what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, who said, “And they took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one who had been priced, on whom a price had been set by the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, just as the יהוה Lord directed me.”


    Textual Commentary about Matthew 27:9

    27:9 Ἰερεμίου {A}

    The reading Ἰερεμίου is firmly established, being supported by א A B C L X W Γ Δ Θ Π and most minuscules, most of the Old Latin, vg syrh, copsa, goth arm eth geo. Since, however, the passage quoted by the evangelist is not to be found in Jeremiah, but seems to come from Zechariah (11:12–13), it is not surprising that several witnesses (22 syrhmg armmss) substitute Ζαχαρίου, while others (Φ 33 157 1579 ita, vgms syrs, , copbo persp Diatessarona, mssacc. to Augustine) omit the name entirely. Curiously, two witnesses (21 itl) read “Isaiah”—perhaps because, as the most prominent of the prophets, his name is met with most frequently in the New Testament (see the comment on διά in 13.35).

     Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 55.


    Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (2013) by Millard J. Erickson is available for purchase. My Logos library has Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (1998), whose 16th chapter (out of 60) ends with:

    Augustine’s suggestion that analogies can be drawn between the Trinity and the realm of human personality is a helpful one. In seeking for thought forms or for a conceptual basis on which to develop a doctrine of the Trinity, we have found the realm of individual and social relationships to be a more fruitful source than is the realm of physical objects. This is true for two reasons. The first is that God himself is spirit; the social and personal domain is, then, closer to God’s basic nature than is the realm of material objects. The second is that there is greater interest today in human and social subjects than in the physical universe. Accordingly, we will examine two analogies drawn from the realm of human relationships.

    The first analogy is from the realm of individual human psychology. As a self-conscious person, I may engage in internal dialogue with myself. I may take different positions and interact with myself. I may even engage in a debate with myself. Furthermore, I am a complex human person with multiple roles and responsibilities in dynamic interplay with one another. As I consider what I should do in a given situation, the husband, the father, the seminary professor, and the United States citizen that together constitute me may mutually inform one another.

    One problem with this analogy is that in human experience it is most clearly seen in situations where there is tension or competition, rather than harmony, between the individual’s various positions and roles. The discipline of abnormal psychology affords us with extreme examples of virtual warfare between the constituent elements of the human personality. But in God, by contrast, there are always perfect harmony, communication, and love.

    The other analogy is from the sphere of interpersonal human relations. Take the case of identical twins. In one sense, they are of the same essence, for their genetic makeup is identical. An organ transplant from one to the other can be accomplished with relative ease, for the recipient’s body will not reject the donor’s organ as foreign; it will accept it as its very own. Identical twins are very close in other ways as well. They have similar interests and tastes. Although they have different spouses and different employers, a close bond unites them. And yet they are not the same person. They are two, not one.

    One idea in the history of the doctrine, the conception of perichoresis, is especially helpful. That is the teaching that the life of each of the persons flows through each of the others, so each sustains each of the others and each has direct access to the consciousness of the others. Thus, the human organism serves as a good illustration of the Triune God. For example, the brain, heart, and lungs of a given individual all sustain and supply each other, and each is dependent on the other. Conjoined twins, sharing one heart and liver, also illustrate this intercommunion. These, however, like all analogies, fall short of full explication of the Trinity. We will need to use several, some of which emphasize the oneness and others the threeness.

    Although we cannot fully see how these two contrasting conceptions relate to each other, theologians are not the only ones who must retain two polarities as they function. In order to account for the phenomena of light, physicists have to hold both that it is waves and that it is quanta, little bundles of energy as it were, yet logically it cannot be both. As one physicist put it: “On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we think of light as waves; on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, we think of it as particles of energy.” Presumably, on Sundays physicists do not concern themselves with the nature of light. One cannot explain a mystery, but can only acknowledge its presence.

    The doctrine of the Trinity is a crucial ingredient of our faith. Each of the three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is to be worshiped, as is the Triune God. And, keeping in mind their distinctive work, it is appropriate to direct prayers of thanks and petition to each of the members of the Trinity, as well as to all of them collectively. Furthermore, the perfect love and unity within the Godhead model for us the oneness and affection that should characterize our relationships within the body of Christ.

    It appears that Tertullian was right in affirming that the doctrine of the Trinity must be divinely revealed, not humanly constructed. It is so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it. We do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity because it is self-evident or logically cogent. We hold it because God has revealed that this is what he is like. As someone has said of this doctrine:

    Try to explain it, and you’ll lose your mind;

    But try to deny it, and you’ll lose your soul.


     Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 365–367.


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606
    edited November 2021

    Four Myths (Lies) taught by trintarians.

    Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal

    This one of several ways trinitarians reject the 'ransom sacrifice' of Jesus Christ. They say the death of Christ is not needed if the soul is immortal but what does the Bible say about the Soul?

    “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”​—Ezekiel 18:4King James Version. Maybe one should consider Genesis 2:7 since Soul can also mean person or creature.


    Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell

    Trintarians teach when you die, you don't die but stay alive only to suffer in an eternal burning hell.

    “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, . . . for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.”​—Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10Revised Standard Version.


    Myth 3: All Good People Go to Heaven

    Trintarians teach that all good people go to heaven. However, many trinitarians proclaim you must beleive in the trinity doctrine to gain salvation.

    “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.”​Matthew 5:5.


    Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

    Trinitarians teach that God is made up of three separate persons. However, they tend to switch to Modalism when confronted that "three separate persons" is absent from the Bible. Modalism is the main faith of Christendom that promotes the pagan teaching of Incarnation.

    “Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”​—Acts 7:55, 56The New Jerusalem Bible.

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,605
    edited November 2021

    @BroRando posted:

    Four Myths (Lies) taught by trintarians.

    An embrace of the Golden Rule is called for here because I can't imagine you'd welcome those whose Christology differs from yours calling your points of view on the deity of Christ "lies" simply because your views differ from theirs. Theological points of view that differ from ours are no more "lies" than are our theological points of view that differ from anyone else's.

    Disagree with others' theologies as often and passionately as you see fit, but please save the "your beliefs are lies" slams for other forums.

  • @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus .... all you most marvelous display of search capabilities in your obviously rather extensive Logos digital library is unfortunately a display of how the Logos software does not help gain a better understanding of Scripture.

  • Ezekiel 18:1-32 LEB => And the word of יהוה Yahweh came to me, saying, “What do you mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel, saying, ‘The fathers, they ate unripe fruit, and the teeth of the child became blunt.’ As I live, declares the Lord יהוה Yahweh, it will surely not any longer be appropriate for you to quote this proverb in Israel! Look! All lives are mine. The lives of father and son alike are mine. The person sinning will die. And if a man is righteous and does justice and righteousness, and on the mountains he does not eat and he does not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and the wife of his neighbor he does not defile and he does not approach a woman of menstruation, and he oppresses no one and he returns a pledge for his loan and he commits no robbery and he gives his bread to the hungry and he covers a naked person with a garment, and he does not charge interest and he takes no usury, and he holds back his hand from injustice and he executes a judgment of fairness between persons, and in my statutes he goes about and my regulations he keeps, performing faithfully —then he is righteous, and certainly he will live,” declares the Lord יהוה Yahweh. “And now he has a son, a violent one, who sheds blood and does any of these things (though he did not do all of these things), for the son also eats on the mountains and he defiles the wife of his neighbor. He oppresses the needy and the poor, and he commits robbery, and he does not return a pledge for a loan, and he lifts his eyes to the idols so he does a detestable thing. He charges interest and takes usury. Then, shall he live? He shall not live, for he did all of these detestable things. Surely he will die! His blood will be on him. “And look! He has a son, and he sees all of the sin of his father that he did, and he sees it, but he does not do it. On the mountains he does not eat, and he does not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and the wife of his neighbor he does not defile. And he oppresses no one; he requires no pledge for a loan, and he does not commit robbery; he gives his bread to the hungry, and he covers the naked person with a garment. He brings back his hand from iniquity; he does not take interest and usury; he does my regulations; he goes in my statutes. He will not die because of the guilt of his father; he will surely live! Because his father oppressed severely; he stole from his brother; that which is not good he did in the midst of his people, and look! He will die through his guilt. “Yet you say, ‘Why does the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ And since the son does justice and righteousness and he keeps all of my statutes and does them, he shall surely live! The person, the one sinning, will die. A son shall not bear the guilt of the father, and a father shall not bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him; the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him. But if the wicked returns from all of his sins that he has done and he keeps all of my statutes and he does justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die! All of his transgressions that he committed will not be remembered against him. Through his righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I delight by any means in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord יהוה Yahweh, and not at his turning from his way, so that he lives? And when the righteous turns from his righteousness, so that he does injustice, and does all of the detestable things that the wicked do, then will he live because of all of his righteousness that he did? Those things will not be remembered because of his infidelity that he displayed, and because of his sin that he committed. Through them he shall die. “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair!’ Listen, now, house of Israel, is my way not fair? Is it not your ways that are not fair? When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and he does injustice, then he will die because of them; because of his injustice that he did he will die! And when the wicked turns from his wickedness that he did and he does justice and righteousness, he will preserve his life. And if he sees and he returns from all of his transgressions that he did, surely he will live; he will not die! And yet they, the house of Israel, say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair!’ Are not my ways fair, house of Israel? Are not your ways unfair? “Therefore I will judge you, house of Israel, each one according to his ways,” declares the Lord יהוה Yahweh. “Repent and turn around from all of your transgression, and it will not be as a stumbling block of iniquity to you. Throw away from yourselves all of your transgressions that you committed, and make for yourselves a new heart and new spirit, and so why will you die, house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of the dying,” declares the Lord יהוה Yahweh. “And so repent and live!”

    Matthew 7:21-23 LEB (with Hebrew word for Jewish usual translation of יהוה as Lord in LXX) => “Not everyone who says to me, ‘יהוה Lord, יהוה Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘יהוה Lord, יהוה Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’ And then I will say to them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’

    Revelation 22:12-16 LEB => “Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to repay each one according to what his deeds are! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Blessed are the ones who wash their robes, so that their authority will be over the tree of life and they may enter into the city through the gates. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral people and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and who practices falsehood. “I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

    Isaiah 44:6-7 LEB => Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me. And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming.

    Repeating questions: Who is "The First and The Last" ? How truthful are the words spoken by Jesus in Revelation 22:12-16 ?

    Isaiah 44:6 has two subjects for singular verb "says" that is consistent with Acts 7:55-56 Jesus is redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts



    Luke 16:19-31 LEB => “Now a certain man was rich, and dressed in purple cloth and fine linen, feasting sumptuously every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, lay at his gate, and was longing to be filled with what fell from the table of the rich man. But even the dogs came and licked his sores. Now it happened that the poor man died, and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s side. And the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes as he was in torment and saw Abraham from a distance, and Lazarus at his side. And he called out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he could dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am suffering pain in this flame!’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you received your good things during your life, and Lazarus likewise bad things. But now he is comforted here, but you are suffering pain. And in addition to all these things, a great chasm has been established between us and you, so that those who want to cross over from here to you are not able to do so, nor can they cross over from there to us.’ So he said, ‘Then I ask you, father, that you send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he could warn them, in order that they also should not come to this place of torment!’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must listen to them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

    Chapters 14 & 15 of Climbing into Eternity: My Descent in Hell and Flight to Heaven by Michele Pulford describe hell existence earlier this century, which is consistent with Luke 16:19-31 teaching: torment, flames, pain, no water, ... (plus provides gut wrenching details along with God's mercy after Michele intentionally overdosed on 100+ pills to cause her human body death after 13 years of evil life style). Yet, Michele's story provides hope for someone choosing suicide as Lord God truly judges heart choices by each human individual. Every creature being tormented in hell (away from God's Love ❤️) choose sin instead of hearing & obeying Deuteronomy 6:4-5 LEB => “Hear, Israel, יהוה Yahweh our אלהים God, יהוה Yahweh is unique. And you shall love יהוה Yahweh your אלהים God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your might.



    @Wolfgang November 3 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus .... all you most marvelous display of search capabilities in your obviously rather extensive Logos digital library is unfortunately a display of how the Logos software does not help gain a better understanding of Scripture.

    Logos Bible Software search capabilities in a digital library are useful for expanding knowledge so can find many points of view plus check quotes: e.g. Jewish Zohar "three names" in Deuteronomy 6:4 plus my human thoughts about God => יהוה Father אלהים Breath The Holy (We) יהוה Son. My favorite feature is visual filter highlighting so can "see" range of verbal expression in original languages and Bibles with Reverse Interlinear alignments => https://wiki.logos.com/Extended_Tips_for_Highlighting_and_Visual_Filters#Examples_of_visual_filters

    🙏 My prayers to One plural unique God include Psalm 119:18 LEB => Uncover my eyes, that I may look at wonderful things from your law.

    Thankful to be learning more about One plural unique God, who is absolutely amazing 🙏❤️(and slowly helping me become Holy as God is Holy)


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606
    edited November 2021

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

    God has One Name not three, spelled differently throughout the different lanquages but still one Name.

    Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Deuteronomy 6:4


    Know that Jehovah is God. He is the one who made us, and we belong to him. We are his people and the sheep of his pasture. Psalm 100:3

    Come into his gates with thanksgiving, Into his courtyards with praise. Give thanks to him; praise His Name. Psalm 100:4

    Sing to Jehovah; praise His Name. Proclaim the good news of his salvation day after day. Psalm 96:2

    Jehovah is great and most worthy of praise. He is more awe-inspiring than all other gods. All the gods of the peoples are worthless gods, But Jehovah is the one who made the heavens. Pslams 96:4-5

    Then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham,r the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my Name Forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation. ' Exodus 3:15

    What Is God’s Name?


    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606
    edited November 2021

    The Tetragrammaton, YHWH: “He Causes to Become”


    The verb HWH: “to become”


    What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.

    Therefore, the meaning of the name Jehovah is not limited to the related verb found at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become” or, “I Will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be.” In the strictest sense, those words do not fully define God’s name. Rather, they reveal an aspect of God’s personality, showing that he becomes what is needed in each circumstance to fulfill his purpose. So while the name Jehovah may include this idea, it is not limited to what he himself chooses to become. It also includes what he causes to happen with regard to his creation and the accomplishment of his purpose.

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • Within two centuries of Jesus walking on earth had Jewish oral traditions & law written down in the Mishnah ~200 CE (followed by Jerusalem Talmud two centuries later ~400 CE and Babylonian Talmud in 500-600 CE). My Logos library has a 1998 translation of Mishnah that includes:

    Tamid 7:2 A They [the priests who had participated] came and stood on the steps of the porch.

    B They who were first [the one who removed the ashes of the inner altar, and the one who cleaned up the candlestick, the one who carried the shovel and the one who offered the incense and his associate] took up a position at the south of their brethren, the priests.

    C And five utensils were in their hand: (1) the ash bin in the hand of one, (2) the oil jar in the hand of one, and (3) the fire shovel in the hand of one, (4) the [incense] dish in the hand of one, and (5) the ladle and its cover [M. 5:4] in the hand of one.

    D They said one [priestly] blessing for the people [Num. 6:24–26].

    E But: In the provinces they say it as three blessings, and in the sanctuary, as one blessing.

    F In the sanctuary they would pronounce the [divine] name as it is written, and in the provinces, by an epithet.

    G In the provinces the priests raise up the palms of their hands as high as their shoulders, and in the sanctuary, over their heads,

    H except for the high priest, who does not raise his hands higher than the frontlet.

    I R. Judah says, “Even the high priest raises his hands above the frontlet,

    J “since it is said, And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them (Lev. 9:22)” [M. Sot. 7:6].


     Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 871–872.

    Mishnah documents Jewish practice of Priests saying יהוה [divine name] in the Jerusalem temple (sanctuary), but saying an epithet elsewhere.

    Sota 7:6 A The blessing of the priests [M. 7:2A4]—how so?

    I B In the provinces they say it as three blessings, and in the sanctuary, as one blessing.

    II C In the sanctuary one says the Name as it is written but in the provinces, with a euphemism.

    III D In the provinces the priests raise their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the sanctuary, they raise them over their heads,

    E except for the high priest, who does not raise his hands over the frontlet.

    F R. Judah says, “Also the high priest raises his hands over the frontlet,

    G “since it is said, And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them (Lev. 9:22).”


     Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 458.

    Holy Priests in Holy Temple properly said יהוה [divine name].


    The Institute for Scripture Research references Tamid 7:2 (vii.2) and Sota 7:6 (vii.6) in "The Scriptures" Introduction:

    THE RESTORATION OF THE NAME

    The Scriptures” differs radically from most other translations in that it does not continue in the tradition of substituting the Name of the Father and of the Son with names ascribed to gentile (pagan) deities. All the names of deities which in the past have been ascribed to the Father, the Son, and even used when engaged in worship, have been avoided.

    One of the post-exilic-apostasies of Orthodox Judaism was the avoidance of the Name of the Almighty, the so-called Tetragrammaton, (the four lettered Name, יהוה). Because of this and a similar and continued suppression and substitution of the Name by the Church, much harm was done to the True Worship. When anyone enquires about this he is told: “The Name has been translated into English as LORD, as was similarly done in other languages.” This argument does not hold water. Guiseppe in Italian corresponds to Joseph in English; however, Guiseppe Verdi cannot be translated as Joseph Green in English, even if that is what it means in English! The proper name of any individual is not translated; it is always transliterated or transcribed in order to approximate its original pronunciation. We repeat: the proper name of any individual is simply not translated, more especially when we are dealing with the most important Beings in all the universe: the Most High (יהוה) and His Son (יהושׁע)!

    We thought of rendering the Father’s Name (יהוה) as Yahuweh (pronounced with the accent on the “u”). On the other hand, John H. Skilton, The Law and the Prophets, pp. 223, 224, prefers “Yahoweh”. The Assyrians transcribed the Name as “Ya-u-a”, so Mowinckle and other scholars prefer “Yahowah”. Some scholars prefer “Yehowah”, because that is the way the Massoretes vowel-pointed it. (Whether this vowel-pointing of the Name was done in truth, or whether it was done to “disguise” the Name, in accordance with the instruction given in the Mishnaic text of Tamid vii.2 (=Sota vii.6), we do not know for certain. There is also the Rabbinical interpretation of the Massoretic text saying that the vowels e, o and a were added to the Name as a Qerě perpetuum which means that the reading of Adonai or Elohim is to be used instead. However, there is no definite proof that the Massoretes originally did it for this reason). Then again, many scholars favour the rendering “Yahweh”. In any event, we decided to avoid controversy over the precise pronunciation and to render it in Hebrew characters as יהוה.

    Such a rendering has solid historical precedent in the earliest copies of the Septuagint (LXX), and has the merit of being true to the text, neither adding nor subtracting by means of substitutions (however well-intended). It has also the additional merit of allowing the individual reader to progress in his own quest for accuracy of pronunciation, as he seeks to obey the scriptural injunctions to call on the Name (Shemoth / Ex. 3:15; Yeshayahu / Is. 12:4; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 10:25; Tehillim / Ps. 105:1, 3;), to make it known (Shemoth / Ex. 9:16; Yeshayahu / Is. 64:1, 2; Ye-ezqěl / Ez. 39:7;), and to not obliterate or forget it (Deḇarim / Dt. 12:3, 4; Yeshayahu / Is. 65:11; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 23:27; Tehillim / Ps. 44:20)! In the same way the Messiah’s Name in Hebrew, יהושׁע, was chosen in order to avoid controversy. All the available authoritative sources and references are in agreement and clearly admit that our Messiah’s Name was יהושׁע (see for instance even Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, under Iesous). However, while some believe that this spelling should be pronounced in the traditional way, i.e. “Yehoshua” others influenced by the Murashu Text suggest the pronunciation “Yahushua”. So we decided to print the Name of the Messiah (יהושׁע) in Hebrew characters as we have done with the Name יהוה.

    While the short post-exilic form “Yeshua” (ישׁוע) is popular with many (indeed the Shem Toḇ Hebrew text of Mattithyahu renders it as such, as also the Hebrew translation of the “New Testament” by F. Delitzch), Dr. Solomon Zeitlin refutes this form as the Name of our Messiah, favouring instead the form יהושׁע (see The Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1970, p. 195). Also see Post-exilic Apostasy in the Explanatory Notes at the back.

    At this stage we need to explain the word “Elohim” used in this translation. English translations have traditionally rendered it as “God” or as “god(s)” in most instances. However, the Hebrew word “elohim” is the plural form of “eloah”, which has the basic meaning of “mighty one”. This word is not only used for deity, but is used in Scripture for judges, angels and idols (Shemoth / Ex. 7:1; 9:28; 12:12; 22:8, 9; Tehillim / Ps. 8:5; 82:1, 6) besides being used frequently for the Almighty. The shorter forms, “el” and “elim” have the same basic meaning and similar usage. (Needless to say, the same applies to the Aramaic equivalents, such as “elah” and “elahin”). By transliterating these expressions instead of translating them as “Mighty One” we discovered a richness in them, and therefore retained them, with the exception of a few instances (noted in footnotes), where the translation of “mighty one” or “mighty ones” seemed more appropriate.

     Institute for Scripture Research, The Scriptures (South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research (Pty) Ltd, 2000), xi–xiii.


    Grammar of Septuagint Greek grammar comments on Exodus 3:14-15

    14. ὁ ὤν: the difference of gender between this expression and the Greek τὸ ὄν marks the difference between Hebrew religion and Greek philosophy in the conception of the Deity. To the one God was a person, to the other a principle. Jos. Ant. II 12 § 4 says καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτῷ σημαίνει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ προσηγορίαν, οὐ πρότερον εἰς ἀνθρώπους παρελθοῦσαν· περὶ ἧς οὐ μοὶ θέμις εἰπεῖν.

    15. Κύριος ὁ θεός: the Hebrew word corresponding to Κύριος here, as usually in the LXX, is JHVH, the name which had just been revealed to Moses and explained as meaning ὁ ὤν. The Jews considered this name too holy to be lightly pronounced, and therefore in reading the sacred text aloud, substituted for Jahveh, wherever it occurred, the word Adonai (= Lord). The fact that the Seventy thus translated Jahveh by Κύριος seems to show that this practice of substitution was already established in the third century b.c. The English version regularly represents the word Jahveh by LORD. The form Jehovah has arisen from the practice of disguising the sacred name even in the text by putting under it the vowel-points of Adonai. When Κύριος stands in the LXX for the proper name Jahveh, it is used, like any other proper name, without the article.—γενεῶν γενεαῖς: a Hebraism.

     F. C. Conybeare and St. George Stock, Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1905), 162.


    The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users includes:

    KETIB-QERE

    What It Looks Like

    A Ketib-Qere can be recognized when a word appears to depart from the normal Hebrew consonant and vowel pattern. This signals a textual issue or problem. For example, a common Ketib-Qere is the form הִוא. The fact that the consonant Waw is never preceded by a Hireq in Hebrew should alert the reader to the fact that something unusual is happening here. As a further aid in recognizing these phenomena, the problematic word in the Hebrew text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS; the standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament) will have a small circle above it. In the margin at that point in the text you will find the consonants of the word as it was heard in the oral tradition.

    What It Does

    The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who later added vowels (or, “vowel points”) to the Hebrew text that was originally comprised exclusively of consonants. This vowel pointing reflected the oral tradition as it existed when the Masoretes worked (ca. AD 6th–10th centuries). At times, the oral tradition the Masoretes were seeking to preserve by means of vowel points conflicted with the consonantal text that was in front of them. This is where the Ketib-Qere comes in. The name is simply the transliteration of two Aramaic words. The first, Ketib, means “written.” It reflects the consonantal text the Masoretes inherited. The second word, Qere, means “read.” It reflects the oral tradition the Masoretes were seeking to preserve. Because of their reverence for the consonantal text, the Masoretes would never alter it. Instead, they wrote the vowels of the word they heard in the oral tradition around the consonantal text that was in front of them. This can result in some strange forms.

    For example, in the Hebrew text of Genesis 24:33, the word וַיֻּי֯שַׂם is a Ketib-Qere. We can recognize that it is such by the fact that a Qibbuts is never followed by a Yod in Hebrew, and also because there is a small circle above the word (noted in BHS). If we look in the margin of BHS, we find the consonants ויושם, indicating that the Masoretes were hearing וַיּוּשַׂם, despite what the consonantal tradition is indicating.

    An Exegetical Insight

    A common Ketib-Qere in biblical Hebrew is the word יְהֹוָה (or its more common abbreviated form, יְהוָה). Clearly, in the many cases where it occurs, the consonantal tradition is indicating that the divine covenantal name יהוה (probably pronounced “Yahweh”) is intended. However, out of reverence, and to avoid unintentionally violating the third commandment, this proper noun was never pronounced. In its place the generic noun אֲדֹנָי (“lord”) was spoken. To indicate this difference, the Masoretes took the vowels of the generic noun and placed them around the consonants of the proper noun. This results in the hybrid form יְהֹוָה. To attempt to pronounce this hybrid form is to follow neither the consonantal tradition nor the oral tradition. Yet, this is exactly what has happened in English! Older Bible translations and hymns frequently use the term Yehovah or Jehovah—a word that would have confused any devout Israelite! In Genesis 17:1, for example, it is the personal God, Yahweh (יהוה), who appears to Abraham and makes the precious covenant with him. And it is the personal God, Jesus, who has secured our covenantal relationship with God.

    Most English Bibles use the form Lord to indicate when this proper noun—God’s personal, covenantal name—occurs in the Hebrew text. When you encounter this term, don’t let the unintended consequences of a Ketib-Qere obscure the deeper significance, obvious in the Hebrew. Remember that יהוה is the name of a personal God who is seeking a personal relationship with you.

     Michael Williams, The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 64–65.

    Masoretes added vowels to Hebrew consontal text after the Mishnah, Jerusalem Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud were written.


    With correct vowels, יהוה [divine name] is incredibly Holy: causes me to pause every time so suspect Lord (Adonai) was being spoken for יהוה so Scripture could be read out loud without pausing for Holy reverence of יהוה (definitely not a name to take in vain OR treat lightly).


    The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users also includes verbal insight:

    IMPERFECT

    (Prefix Conjugation, Preformative Conjugation, YQTL Conjugation)

    What It Looks Like

    An Imperfect verb is recognized by means of the consonants (called preformatives) that attach to the front of the three-consonant root. That’s why this conjugation is also called the “preformative” conjugation. Some forms also have consonants and vowels that attach to the end of the three-consonant root. Only the features of the Imperfect conjugation that are shared by all of Hebrew’s seven verb stems are shown below, attached to boxes that represent the consonants of any three-consonant root:

    (removed table after pasting into CD due to forum software display being hard to read)

    What It Does

    The Imperfect conjugation indicates that the action of the verb is not complete. We usually indicate this incomplete action in English by the present or future tenses. The incomplete action signaled by the Imperfect conjugation may also be habitual or customary action. For example, the verbal phrase “used to sell” in the sentence “I used to sell magazines door-to-door” would be indicated in Hebrew by the Imperfect conjugation because the action, even though it took place in the past, was ongoing. It is also important to note that a verb in the Imperfect conjugation may be translated with a modal value, that is, preceded by “would,” “could,” “should,” “may,” “might,” and so forth. Context is the ultimate determining factor for which one of these translational options applies.

    An Exegetical Insight

    In Exodus 3:14 Moses asks God to tell him what to say to the people when they ask who sent Moses to them. God tells Moses, “This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘[אֶהְיֶה] has sent me to you.’ ” The three-consonant root היה (meaning “to be”) has an א in front of it, indicating that it is a 1cs Imperfect verb, so the subject of the verb is “I.” But how should we translate the verbal idea? “I will be”? “I am”? “I have been”? The answer is yes, yes, and yes. Because the basic sense of the verb is “to exist,” and God has always existed and always will exist, the Imperfect verb includes all of these senses. Indeed, elsewhere God describes himself as “the Alpha and Omega … who is, and who was, and who is to come” (Revelation 1:8).

    In English, however, our verbal system operates on the basis of time, unlike the Hebrew verbal system, which operates on the basis of whether or not the action is regarded as completed. So how can we translate this Hebrew verb that indicates continuing existence unrestricted by time into the English language, where action is expressed in terms of the time in which it occurs? Well, we do the best we can. Most English translations opt for the present tense and render the designation God gives himself as “I am.” Recognizing the significance of the Hebrew Imperfect conjugation, however, gives the reader the advantage of seeing that God is describing himself not just as being present then, but rather as being continually present. The omnipresence of God is an essential foundation of a believer’s confidence. And it provides a greater depth of understanding for the “I am” in the words of the Son of God at the end of Matthew’s gospel (28:20): “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

     Michael Williams, The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 52–53.


    Revelation 4:8 LEB (with Hebrew words for Jewish usual translation of יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God in LXX)  => And the four living creatures, each one of them, had six wings apiece, full of eyes around and inside, and they do not have rest day and night, saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the יהוה Lord אלהים God All-Powerful, the one who was and the one who is and the one who is coming!”


    Hebrew verbal system focuses on kind of action while English verbal system focuses on time (past, present, future). Koine Greek verbal system is a hybrid in between: primary kind of action with secondary time.


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606

    Elohim is not God's Name... never was and never will be. Elohim is a title which is often referred to angels and men who are in the position of Judging.

    You must not profane My Holy Name, and I must be sanctified in the midst of the Israelites. I am Jehovah, who is sanctifying you LEVITICUS 22:32 Also red your LEB @ Leviticus 22:32 Consecrate means to declare or set apart as sacred.


    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606
    edited November 2021

    We are currently researching Matthew 28:19 for validity. Since this generic forumla doesn't fit or correlate with the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ with was the Baptism of the First Century. It would be an epic and wonderful thing to turn Christendom on its head, if the NWT adjusted this scripture to its orginal and proper place.  It appears that Matthew 28:19 is a spurious scripture that was changed by the trintarian church in its infancy. It was one of the first scriptures that were altered to try to fit a triune formula into scripture. Funny thing is that None of the Baptisms of the First Century were made in the generic formula.  Few know that the Book of Matthew was first written in the native tongue of the Apostle Matthew who was of the Levi tribe. Yes... it was written in Hebrew about 8 years after Christ's Ressurection which brings us to 41 CE.  

    The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

    Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83

     

    Allow scripture to interpret scripture. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew 28:19)  

     

    So how were Christians baptized?

     

    “With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)

     

    Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

     

    “But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)

     

    “Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)

     

    “On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)

     

    Read more...

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,404

    @BroRando,

    We all know that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible. It doesn't mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Scripture. The same is true of JW's favorite term, "theocracy, "doesn't appear in the Bible. The absence of the word for "Trinity" or the word for "God's rule" (theocracy) implies that the realities expressed by these two words are absent from the Scripture.

    Contrary to what your JW's website says, it failed to mention the Trinitarian pattern. They don't support your Unitarian views. Many of these passages are in the New Testament. The direct and obvious ones are in Matt. 28: 19 and 1 Cor. 13: 14.  However, you should consider the following:

    • I Cor. 6: 11, 12: 4-5
    • 1 Cor. 1: 21-22
    • Gal. 3: 11-14
    • I Thess. 5: 18-19
    • I Pet. 1: 2 

    I acknowledged the manuscript evidence of 1 John 5: 7-8 (KJV)is insufficient. To prove the Trinity, no one should use the text above. However, there is plenty of proof for the doctrine of the Trinity elsewhere in the New Testament.

    JWs  [a modern form of the ancient heresy of Arianism] should consider clear statements on the true deity of Jesus Christ. Unless they changed it recently, The New World Translation (NWT), firstly said so by Thomas. He addressed Jesus Christ after his resurrection with a confession of his deity when he said, "My Master" (NWT footnote gives, "Or, 'Lord") "and God" (John 20: 28).

    1. If Jesus were not truly divine as God is divine, Thomas made a mistake.
    2. Why does Jesus make no effort to correct him?
    3. Jesus accepted the ascription of deity and commended all who share Thomas's faith.
    4. See John 20:29 -- "Jesus said to him: 'Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.'" 

    It is not honest to divide Thomas's exclamation, as some JWs do. They tried by stating, Thomas addressed and  Such tactic overlooks the plain introductory words, "Thomas said to Him that is to Jesus:

    "My Master and my God'"


    The second person who understood Jesus as Lord is Stephen, the first martyr. When he was being stoned, "he made an appeal " and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit " (Acts 7:59).

    • The "he made an appealin the NWT as footnote gives as alternatives of "appeal," "invocation," or "prayer."
    • Here Stephen invoked the Lord Jesus.
    • It is obviously both foolish and sinful to pray to anyone except God.

    If the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct, namely, that Jesus is only a spirit creature, then Stephen was an idolater in praying to one who was not God.


    The third person to acknowledge Jesus as Lord is Paul in Galatians:

    • NWT: "Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but Jesus Christ and God the Father. . . ."
    • Paul made clear; his apostleship was derived from an unusual source. Neither from men nor through a man as a channel. Instead of receiving his appointment as an Apostle from or through any human being, he declares that it was "through Jesus Christ and God the Father."
    • In addition, Pail used two prepositions when speaking of "men" and "a man," but here, he uses only one preposition, "through  Jesus Christ and God the Father." 
    • Lightfoot said of this verse, "The channel of his [Paul's] authority coincides with its source."

    Paul showed he was impressed. E.g., three circumstances:

    1. Paul's purpose in this verse doesn't refer explicitly to the nature of Christ. Nevertheless, He views Christ as fully divine that it comes naturally to him to refer, even in passing, to Jesus Christ and God in the same breath, using the same preposition for both persons of the Trinity.
    2. Let's not forget Paul's strict Jewish monotheistic background. Through rabbinical training, one was surprised to find Paul using language to regard Jesus Christ in this holy light.
    3. Not only did Paul hold this incredible view of Jesus, but he assumed that everyone agreed with him.


    In Galatians, the Judaizers, so far as we can see, did not quarrel with Paul's lofty view of Christ. Thomas, Stephen, Paul, and others regard Jesus as God, but according to John 10: 30, Jesus himself claimed:

    "I and the Father are one." 

    All translations, including your NWT, render this verse. The marginal note of NWT translation, suggesting that "are one" means "are at unity," is an alternative interpretation lacking in justification that the translators did not dare to introduce it into the text itself.

    Here Jesus is represented as claiming much more than having one purpose or outlook with the Father. Jesus claimed to be one with the Father in essence. The Jews understand him to mean this, for they took up stones to stone him for blasphemy (John 10.31-33).

    Don't you agree with me with your translation? CM

    SOURCE:

    • J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 6th ed. (London, 1880). p. 72.
  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606

    WE all know that the trinity is absent from ALL BIBLES. Even the doctrine of "three seprate persons" are absent from ALL Bibles. The trinitarian teaching that "Jesus is God" is also absent from ALL Bibles. What is more, is that the teaching of the trintarians that "Jesus is God' Is also absent from ALL TRINITY DOCTRINCES.

    The trinity is not only an evil doctrine but an anti-christian doctine that totally omits CHRIST from its doctrine.


    Jesus stated,  I and the Father are one. John 10:30

    Jesus stated, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. John 17:11

    Jesus also stated,  I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. John 17:22

    Being in union with God does not make that person God. So from now on, please cite the triniy doctrine that you aspire to beleive in. Thank you.

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • TruthTruth Posts: 490

    Those who reject the notion of trinity may do so because they are thinking the term means, from a human perspective, that God is three different human-like persons. Obviously that is impossible and trinitarians do not think that.

    Those who endorse trinity presumably think of God, from God's perspective, as a description of three God-persons in one being.

    If you insist on thinking of Trinity as making God out to be three humans, then some of your contrary arguments would be right.

    Suggestion: listen to what trinitarians are saying and try to understand.

  • Those who endorse trinity presumably think of God, from God's perspective, as a description of three God-persons in one being.

    WOW ... those people like you must then be on some super-human and actually God-like status that they can think FROM GOD's PERSPECTIVE ... and I thought that even all Trinitarian theologians agreed that the trinity doctrine was developed over a period of centuries until established in the 4th-6th century AD.

    Your explanations get weirder as you try to explain trinity ideas ... How can humans think that they have God's perspective while attributing to others only a human perspective ? Are they self-deceived?

  • TruthTruth Posts: 490

    No special status needed or ability needed. Understanding isn't so difficult. Obviously, there is much about God we don't understand, but trinity is fairly straight-forward. Unless you reject it. Then it becomes the stone over which you stumble, or outright reject--Jesus Christ. This forum is testimony to that.

  • @BroRando November 3 Elohim is not God's Name... never was and never will be. 

    Abraham called God el-o-HEEM אלהים. FYI: God Shaddai in Exodus 6:3 has אל el (God) abbreviation for אלהים el-o-HEEM followed by שדי sha-DAI.

    Exodus 6:1-8 LEB => And יהוה Yahweh said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh, because with a strong hand he will release them, and with a strong hand he will drive them out from his land.” And אלהים God spoke to Moses, and he said to him, “I am יהוה Yahweh. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as אל God שדי Shaddai, but by my name יהוה Yahweh I was not known to them. And I not only established my covenant with them to give to them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, in which they dwelt as aliens, but also I myself heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are making to work, and I remembered my covenant. Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘I am יהוה Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the forced labor of Egypt, and I will deliver you from their slavery, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great punishments. And I will take you as my people, and I will be your אלהים God, and you will know that I am יהוה Yahweh your אלהים God, who brought you out from under the forced labor of Egypt. And I will bring you to the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you as a possession. I am יהוה Yahweh.”


    Messianic Christology by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum has Other Lines of Evidence, which includes:

    The Unity of the Godhead

    The Shema—Deuteronomy 6:4

    Everything which has been said so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our doctrine on the Scriptures alone, we have to say that on the one hand they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a plurality in the Godhead.

    This idea of plurality within the Godhead is consistently rejected by Judaism despite all of the evidence discussed so far, and invariably the argument returns to Deuteronomy 6:4 as final evidence of the singular nature of God.

    Shema Yisroel Adomi Elohenu Adonai Echad.”

    6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! (nasb)

    Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel’s great confession. It is this verse more than any other which is used to affirm the fact that God is one and to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

    It should be pointed out, first of all, that the very words “our God” are actually in the plural in Hebrew—literally “our Gods.” The main argument, however, lies in the word “one,” which is the Hebrew word echad. A quick glance through the verses in the Hebrew text where this word is used will show that the word echad does not mean an “absolute one,” but a “compound one.”

    For example, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one [echad] day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage “and the two shall become one [echad] flesh.” In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one [echad], though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one [echad]. Thus, use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound unity, not an absolute unity.

    There is a Hebrew word which does mean an absolute unity and that is the word yachid. This word is used in numerous places with the emphasis being on the meaning of “only one.” If Moses had intended to teach God’s absolute oneness as opposed to His compound oneness, this would have been a far more appropriate word to have used. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of yachid and chose to use it in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, does not use yachid in reference to God.


     Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology: A Study of Old Testament Prophecy Concerning the First Coming of the Messiah (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1998), 108.

    Logos Bible Search for <Lemma = lbs/he/יָחִיד> in Lexham Hebrew Bible finds three יחיד yachid (only) occurrences in Torah, The Books of Moses:

    Genesis 22:1-19 LEB => And it happened that after these things, אלהים God tested Abraham. And he said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “Take your son, your יחיד only child, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains where I will tell you.” And Abraham rose up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. And he took two of his servants with him, and Isaac his son. And he chopped wood for a burnt offering. And he got up and went to the place which אלהים God had told him. On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw the place at a distance. And Abraham said to his servants, “You stay here with the donkey, and I and the boy will go up there. We will worship, then we will return to you.” And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and placed it on Isaac his son. And he took the fire in his hand and the knife, and the two of them went together. And Isaac said to Abraham his father, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” And he said, “Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” And Abraham said, “אלהים God will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went together. And they came to the place that אלהים God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood. Then he bound Isaac his son and placed him on the altar atop the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. And the angel of Yahweh called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham! Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the boy; do not do anything to him. For now I know that you are one who fears אלהים God, since you have not withheld your son, your יחיד only child, from me.” And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked. And behold, a ram was caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it as a burnt offering in place of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place “Yahweh will provide,” for which reason it is said today, “on the mountain of יהוה Yahweh it shall be provided.” And the angel of יהוה Yahweh called to Abraham a second time from heaven. And he said, “I swear by myself, declares יהוה Yahweh, that because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your יחיד only child, that I will certainly bless you and greatly multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the shore of the sea. And your offspring will take possession of the gate of his enemies. All the nations of the earth will be blessed through your offspring, because you have listened to my voice.” And Abraham returned to his servants, and they got up and went together to Beersheba. And Abraham lived in Beersheba.

    FYI: יחיד yachid was assigned Hebrew Strong # 3173



    @BroRando November 3 Elohim is a title which is often referred to angels and men who are in the position of Judging.

    Logos Bible Search for <Lemma = lbs/he/אֱלֹהִים> in the Lexham Hebrew Bible finds 2,601 results in 2,248 verses. Logos Bible Search for <Lemma = lbs/he/אֱלֹהִים> INTERSECTS God in the Lexham English Bible (LEB) finds 2,580 results in 2,234 verses. Appears your "often referred to angels and men" assertion is occurences in 14 verses (or less), which is NOT often to me.



    @BroRando November 3 We are currently researching Matthew 28:19 for validity.

    Society of Biblical Languages Greek New Testament has two apparatus indicator in Matthew 28:19

    19 οὖν WH Treg NA28 ] – RP

    βαπτίζοντες WH NA28 RP ] βαπτίσαντες Treg

     Holmes, M. W. (2011–2013). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature.

    Therefore (οὖν) is not in The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Southborough, Mass.: Chilton, 2005).

    Baptizing participle (βαπτίζοντες) has a different spelling in Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, Edited from Ancient Authorities, with their Various Readings in Full, and the Latin Version of Jerome (London: Bagster; Stewart, 1857–1879).


    English translation from Syriac Peshitto has "baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19

    18 And Jesus came near, and discoursed with them, and said to them: All authority is given to me, in heaven and on earth. And as my Father sent me, so also I send you. 19 Go ye, therefore, and instruct all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 20 And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, unto the consummation of the world. Amen.

     Horace L. Hastings and Isaac H. Hall, The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto, trans. James Murdock, Ninth Edition. (Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons, 1915), Mt 28:18–20.


    Didache (Teaching) has baptism in Chapter 7:

    CHAPTER VII

    AND concerning baptism, baptize after this manner: Having first recited all these precepts baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in living water; 2 but if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold water then baptize in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour out water upon the head thrice, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.* 4 And before the baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others that are able; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.


     G. C. Allen, tran., The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles Translated with Notes (London: The Astolat Press, 1903), 5.


    Dating of The Didache (The Teaching) has a range of opinions as summarized in 2019:

    Date and Provenance of the Didache

    As I attempt to provide a dating schema for the Didache, it will immediately reveal a domino effect of problems, assumptions about provenance, presuppositions about the text and source influences of the Didache, and much more. With these critical questions, the most that can be present are probable guesses—and, hopefully, educated guesses at best. Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser lucidly identify this problem when they express, “In making a statement about the date and place of origin of the Didache, no answer can pretend to be better than a reasonable guess. The many differing opinions show how meager and puzzling are the clues given by the Didache.”

    Available Options in Didache Scholarship

    The dates and provenance of the Didache vary in scholarship. Furthermore, some suggest the Didache is a coherent whole and reflects a static moment. However, others are more willing to observe the composite additions to the Didache and thereby see development in the composition process.70 Both of these text presuppositions affect the given date about the Didache. Among Didache Scholars, a gap of 100 years roughly comprises the divergent opinions. Aaron Milavec has documented some of these dates for the Didache that range between 70–165 ce. Audet suggested a dating window of 50 and 70 ce. Alan Garrow has creatively suggested a pre-Matthean date for the Didache, which compares to other first-century pieces of literature.73 Some have argued for dates that range throughout the second century. According to Draper, a window to date the general formation of the Didache coalesces as a pre-Matthean source up through the mid-second century: 50–150 ce.

    Clayton Jefford has assumed a different line of inquiry that compares the composition of the Didache in concert with Matthew. He presents a three-fold dating taxonomy as follows. First, the Didache was composed after Matthew so that the Didache is able to utilize a literary form of Matthew or Matthean traditions. Second, the Didache predates Matthew’s composition. So, if dependency exists, Matthew takes literary cues from the Didache.77 Third, the two texts were composed, more or less, during the same time. It is possible, then, that both writers are aware of each other or they draw from a similar oral tradition—even extending to the redactional process of both Didache and Matthew.

    To provide a date for the Didache and to determine a given provenance still remains rather difficult, and it is nearly impossible to please all parties. So, I want to suggest a few methodological factors for consideration, and then list my presuppositions about date and provenance. Methodologically, one must distinguish the difference between the source traditions of the Didache and the composite redactions when trying to date the Didache. In other words, some material in the Didache might pre-date the actual Didache (cf. Duae viae). So, even if Didache material pre-dates the Didache, to use Arius’s expression, “there was a time when the Didache was not,” even though material later found in the Didache previously existed. Additionally, constellations of geographical and theological cues likewise appear. For example, what geographical region exists to encompass the moving water for baptisms (Did. 7.1–4)? Does the Didache community use “hypocrite” in the same way that first-century Christians used the term (Did. 8.1–2)? When the Didache mentions “Gospel,” is the kerygma or a codex in mind, or something else?

    My Presuppositions about Date and Provenance

    In addition to these methodological considerations, I offer the following presuppositions. (1) First, I see a general correspondence between the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew—which, by no means, serves as a novel feature. This correspondence affects both dating and provenance. Contra Garrow’s unique thesis, I do not see the Didache being composed prior to Matthew but the Didache written concurrently with or after the composition of Matthew. Thus, the date of Matthew’s Gospel will inform the date of the Didache.

    (2) Along with the majority of Didache scholarship, I affirm that the Didache is generally a composite text. At this point in my thinking (still somewhat nascent on this present issue), I really have no systemic disagreements with Nancy Pardee’s reconstruction. My particularly agnostic tendency emerges when these arguments are pressed to encompass micro-literary expressions and where these composite features occur.

    Therefore, related to the previous presupposition, (3) I see no reason for the Didache to be written in a single setting. This premise affects the dating of the text. The question, “at what point does the Didache become Didache?” really matters. To further complicate this problem, the Didache may not overnight become the “Didache” but will most likely “become Didache” over time. So, a dating “window” seems like a more viable option.

    As it relates to the textual stability of the Didache, H54 is a rather late MS and is really the only document that we have to assess a second-century setting. Thus, (4) given the divergent years between the eleventh-century H54 and the possible second-century social setting of the Didache, I hold loosely any date given to the Didache. Until more Didache MS(S) are found, we have to make historical judgments about a second-century setting with a text nearly 900 years later.

    Therefore, (5) to provide a specific date for the Didache may not be the most helpful approach. Rather, to speak of a “window” for the Didache seems far more palatable for me. I assume the majority of Didache scholarship and essentially affirm the mean of diverging opinions on the date. For the sake of the commentary and my surrounding arguments, I assume a window of 80–110 ce when the Didache becomes Didache—even if composite additions and redactions from the community may appear in subsequent generations. That is, the core of the Didache appears in this window, although I remain open to allowing composite additions to the text in subsequent years. And, I assign Antioch or the northern regions of Palestine as the given provenance. Bart Ehrman simply and concisely sums up the date of the Didache to sometime around the year 100 ce:

    The teaching of the two paths may have been taken over from a Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) source written as early as the mid-first century; the church order seems to presuppose a situation prior to the second century, before internal church structures were widely in place; the apocalyptic discourse could have been composed almost any time during the first two centuries. As to the date of the Didachist himself, opinions again vary, but most would put the time of his composition sometime around the year 100, possibly a decade or so later.


     Shawn J. Wilhite, The Didache: A Commentary, ed. Paul A. Hartog and Shawn J. Wilhite, vol. 1, Apostolic Fathers Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2019), 18–22.


    @BroRando November 3 The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

    Curious about ISBN and Imprimatur.

    FWIW: searching 24 Catholic Encyclopedias in my Logos library for "baptismal formula" did not find @BroRando's page 263 assertion.


    @BroRando November 3 Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83

    Logos Basic Search for "city of Rome" in Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition) by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) found context:

    1. introductory remarks on the history and structure of the apostles’ creed

    All that we have said so far has done no more than attempt to answer the formal question of what belief as such is and where in the world of modern thought it can find a starting point and a function to perform. The more far-reaching problems relating to its content thus necessarily remained open—with the whole subject perhaps looking only too pale and ill-defined. The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: “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.” In accordance with this injunction, three questions are put to the person to be baptized: “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God …? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit …?” The person being baptized replies to each of these three questions with the word “credo”—I believe—and is then each time immersed in the water. Thus the oldest form of the confession of faith takes the shape of a tripartite dialogue, of question and answer, and is, moreover, embedded in the ceremony of baptism.

    Probably in the course of the second century, and even more in the third, the originally quite simple tripartite formula, which simply uses the written text of Matthew 28, was expanded in the middle section, that is, the question about belief in Christ. Here, after all, the decisively Christian element was involved, and it was felt necessary to give within the framework of this question a brief summary of what Christ means for the Christian; similarly, the third question, the profession of faith in the Holy Spirit, was further clarified and developed as a confession of faith in the present and future of the Christian attitude. Then in the fourth century we meet a continuous text detached from the question-and-answer format; that it is still in Greek makes it probable that it dates originally from the third century, since by the fourth the final change to Latin even in the liturgy had been made in Rome. A Latin translation also appears very soon afterward in the fourth century. Because of the special position belonging to the Church of Rome in relation to the whole of the West, the Roman baptismal profession (known as the symbolum, symbol) was quickly able to gain currency in the whole Latin-speaking area. It is true that in the process it underwent a series of minor textual alterations, until finally Charlemagne secured the recognition of one form of the text throughout his empire, a form that—based on the old Roman text—had received its final shape in Gaul. This unified text was adopted in the city of Rome in the ninth century. From about the fifth century, possibly as early as the fourth, we come across the legend of the apostolic origin of this text. Very soon (probably still in the fifth century) this legend crystallized into the assumption that each of the twelve articles into which the whole was now divided had been contributed by one of the twelve apostles.

    In the East this Roman symbol or creed remained unknown; it came as no small surprise to the Roman representatives at the ecumenical Council of Florence in the fifteenth century when they learned from the Greeks that the symbolum presumed to stem from the apostles was not employed by them. The East had never developed a unified symbol of this sort because no individual Church there occupied a position comparable with that of Rome in the West—as the one “apostolic see” in the Western world. The East was always characterized by the variety of its symbols, which also deviate somewhat in theological type from the Roman symbol. The Roman creed (and with it the Western creed in general) is more concerned with the history of salvation and with Christology. It lingers, so to speak, on the positivistic side of the Christian story; it simply accepts the fact that to save us God became man; it does not seek to penetrate beyond this story to its causes and to its connection with the totality of being. The East, on the other hand, has always sought to see the Christian faith in a cosmic and metaphysical perspective, which is mirrored in professions of faith above all by the fact that Christology and belief in creation are related to each other, and thus the uniqueness of the Christian story and the everlasting, all-embracing nature of the creation come into close association. We shall return later to discuss how today this enlarged perspective is at last beginning to gain currency in the Western consciousness as well, especially as a result of stimuli from the work of Teilhard de Chardin.

     Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–85.


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606
    edited November 2021

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Abraham called God el-o-HEEM אלהים. FYI: God Shaddai in Exodus 6:3 has אל el (God) abbreviation for אלהים el-o-HEEM followed by שדי sha-DAI.

    @BroRando Not true. Abraham did not call God elohim. Elohim is a title not a name. God is a title, not a name.

    The scripture READS:  Then God said to Moses: “I am Jehovah.  And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them." (Exodus 6:2-3)

    In Exodus chapter 6, Jehovah was speaking to Moses.... Earlier in Genesis, Abraham names that place after God.

    And Abraham named that place Je·hoʹvah-jiʹreh. This is why it is still said today: “In the mountain of Jehovah it will be provided.” Genesis 22:14

    But since "No Man has SEEN God at ANY time" (John 1:18) Both Abraham and Moses was speaking to the angel of Jehovah.


    SEE ~~> And Jehovah’s angel called to Abraham a second time from the heavens, Genesis 22:15

    Then Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush.  As he kept looking, he saw that the thornbush was on fire, and yet the thornbush was not consumed.  So Moses said: “I will go over to inspect this unusual sight to see why the thornbush does not burn up.” Exodus 3:2-3

    Christ is the angel of Jehovah, God's Personal Messenger. (Proverbs 8:22)

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • No special status needed or ability needed.

    How then do some humans, trinitarisans, see with God's perspective (in other words, see it from God's position) ? And those same folks claim that others reading the same text -- btw, a text written in human language for humans to understand (!!) - only have human perspective (seeing from human position) ??

    Understanding isn't so difficult.

    Indeed ... just read what is written! And don't do what some self-declared "God perspective"-folks do => imagine their false ideas into the text.

    Obviously, there is much about God we don't understand, but trinity is fairly straight-forward. Unless you reject it. Then it becomes the stone over which you stumble, or outright reject--Jesus Christ. This forum is testimony to that.

    Do you realize that YOU might be the one self-elevating yourself and your beloved man-made "holy trinity" above what God indeed has revealed about Himself ??

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,404

    @BroRando said:

    Christ is the angel of Jehovah, God's Personal Messenger. (Proverbs 8:22)

    If that's the case, He shouldn't be worshipped and empowered to forgive sins. "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old" (Proverbs 8:22, NKJV). The use of "Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is related to the Lord as the Creator.

    • See the Creation account in Genesis 1 and 2.
    • Its literary structure, organized around the three essential elements of heaven, water, and earth.

    The primary qualification of Wisdom: 

    • If God Himself used Wisdom to create the oldest tool, older than the universe itself and fundamental to its existence, we should all the more use Wisdom in everything we do in life.


    There is a strong emphasis on the divine origin of Wisdom. Three keywords in the poem:

    1. The LordYahweh
    2. "Begotten" wisdom
      1. The Hebrew word qanah, translated as "possessed" by the NKJV, has the connotation of "begetting" rather than "creating" (see Deut. 32:6, Gen. 4:1). 
    3. The third word is a technical word that is associated with the Genesis Creation, reshit ("beginning"), which is found in the first verse of Genesis: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
      1. The word "beginning" in Proverbs 8:22 is used somewhat differently from the way it is used in Genesis 1:
        1. In Genesis 1:1, the word is related to the Creation itself.
      2. In Proverbs 8:22"beginning" is related to God Himself, to His way (derek), which means His nature. Thus, Wisdom is part of the very nature of God Himself.
    4. In Genesis 1, we see that each step of the Creation concludes with the same refrain: 
      1. "God saw that it was good(see Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). 
      2. The last step (Gen. 1.31) goes even further: "It was very good."


    Please note Wisdom:

    • Wisdom is situated in time even before the Creation of the universe.
    • He existed at the time when only God was present, "from everlasting."
    • Thus, Wisdom does not originate in us but, instead, is revealed to us; it is something that we learn, something taught to us; it is not what we generate out of ourselves.

    Jesus is "the true Light which gives light to every man(John 1:9, NKJV).


    In patristic Christology, Prov 8:22–31, this most famous OT passages reference Christ. Dowling summarizes it by saying:

    "Most Fathers assume without question that the OT Wisdom passages speak of the Son (or Word) of God."

    1. Justin Martyr (d. 166) gave Prov 8:22 a Christological interpretation, showing that Christ (or the Holy Spirit) was always with the Father and emphasizing the distinction between the Logos and the Father and the priority of the Logos over Creation.
    2. Athenagoras, in his Supplication for the Christians (ca. 177), and Tertullian (ca. 160–220), followed Justin in identifying Logos (= Wisdom) with the eternal Son of God. They used Prov 8 as part of their two-stage history of the Logos to depict the Logos passing from an "immanent" state in the mind of God to an "expressed" state sent forth for Creation.
    3. Origen of Alexandria clearly understands Wisdom to refer not simply to an impersonal attribute but Jesus. Wisdom is the beginning of God's ways in the sense that "she contained within herself either the beginnings or forms or species of all creation."

    Read widely, think deeply, seek Wisdom, and be enlightened. CM


    SOURCES:

    • Maurice Dowling, “Proverbs 8:22–31 in the Christology of the Early Fathers,” Irish Biblical Studies 24 (June, 2002): 99–117.
    • Justin, Dialogue with Trypho (Dialogus cum Tryphone) 61.3–5, in The Ante- Nicean Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Repr. Peabody: Hendrick- son, 1994), 1:227–228).
    • Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 10.3 (ANF 2:133).
    • Tertullian, Against Praxeas (Adversus Praxean) 6–7 (ANF 3:9.601–602).
  • TruthTruth Posts: 490

    Do you realize that YOU might be the one self-elevating yourself and your beloved man-made "holy trinity" above what God indeed has revealed about Himself ??

    I do not wish to present myself has having skills or insights greater than is readily available to you or anyone else. None of those are necessary. You can understand such things. The matter is not so much understanding as accepting or rejecting what is already understood. You have demonstrated a spectacular effort to misunderstand it.

  • I do not wish to present myself has having skills or insights greater than is readily available to you or anyone else. None of those are necessary. You can understand such things.

    Well, if you talk as if you have God's perspective whereas I and other humans only have human perspective, then you must be of a different level (God-level) of skill or insight which us other limited humans just do not have.

    Btw, I was a rather passionate preacher and defender of the trinity doctrine during my earlier years ... and at least engaged in biblical study and exchange with non trinitarians ... I know by personal experience the errors and deceptions in which trinitarians are caught .... 😉

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

    English translation from Syriac Peshitto has "baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19

    How many people were Baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19 in th first century? ZERO

    Catholicism rejects Baptisim in the Name of Jesus Christ. Funny how Catholicism proclaims tha Peter was their First Pope and then turn around and deny his teachings.

    You don't see Peter Baptizing in a three person forumla with No Names. Ten days after Jesus gave his commission to the apostles we find:

    Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit. (Acts 2:38)

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • Eusebius also has the wording "make disciples of all nations in my name" in quite a number of his earlier writings from before the council of Nicea (325 AD) ....no command to baptize mentioned there, and no mention of a trinitarian "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" idea either.

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606

    Additional Evidence that points to the Original Scripture of Matthew 28:19

    The Historian Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339), had extensive access to the Library that kept a copy of the original text of Matthew.  Eusebius was also a Bishop whom quoted the Shem Tov Book of Matthew some seventeen times and all quotes of (Matthew 28:19) were quotes of one accord with no variations, (In My Name).

    However, between the years 315 and 325 CE the Hebrew Book of Matthew was shelved or in some manner hidden away.  "The Greek version used by Eusebius poured more widely these verses, but in no way changing the sense of the Hebrew text, because when he quotes in his Ecclesiastical History (Book 3, Chapter 5:2) part of Matthew 28:19, he writes:

    Poreuthentes mathêteusate panta ta ethnê en to onomati mou or

    Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.


    "In fact, Eusebius refers to this passage well over a dozen times in the same form as the above quotations. Now you must also be aware that this quotation by Eusebius is also earlier than our earliest manuscripts for this verse. Hence, it is quite possible that a corruption occurred around the time the Arian controversy broke out under Constantine's reign. The following quotation is particularly interesting:

    For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”.

    For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.’ (Demonstatio Evangelica, col. 240, p. 136)

    Obviously, the manuscript of Matthew being used by Eusebius was different than the words we find in today's Bibles. Eusebius is not the only one to provide us with clues concerning this issue:

    "In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out.' – Conybeare"

    Scripture also says that by the authority of Jesus people would be told to turn to God and change the way they think and act so that their sins will be forgiven. This would be told to people from all nations, beginning in the city of Jerusalem. '...and on the basis of his name, repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem.' (Luke 24:47)

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • TruthTruth Posts: 490

    The matter would be comical if it were not so seriously consequential.

    We have a few blind men groping their way scholarly along an elephant, declaring a lot of descriptive nonsense; while seeing people make delightful sense out of the owners' manual. But a foolish blind man cannot comprehend being able to see and will continue his defense of the elephant in the dark.

    No watch determined blind Wolfgang pop back with, "Same to you only more of it" as expected (or the equivalent) as expected. But that is better than poor blind and deaf Rondo who can't even hear. Then you have Legalistic Bill and Cream Puff Waffle CM. Makes me wonder what you all think of me.

  • Makes me wonder what you all think of me.

    Perhaps a rather misled false dogma believing person who still has an opportunity to take responsibility for your beliefs and correct them in light of what plain Scripture states ? The decision is yours ....

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,605


    @Truth posted:

    No watch determined blind Wolfgang pop back with, "Same to you only more of it" as expected (or the equivalent) as expected. But that is better than poor blind and deaf Rondo who can't even hear. Then you have Legalistic Bill and Cream Puff Waffle CM. Makes me wonder what you all think of me.

    In forums that expect participants to "criticize ideas, not people," judgments about "blind Wolfgang," "poor blind and deaf Rondo," "legalistic Bill," and "Cream Puff Rondo" aren't appropriate, which in my view means that what any of us thinks of you isn't germane. You've decided to post here, which means you deserve our respect as a child of God and a fellow follower of Jesus. No more needs to or should be said.

    Now as to your and our respective views, those are another matter, of course; such are the life's blood of our interactions.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,404

    @Truth

    Did someone hurt you? I have no idea why or what you are referring to warrant being called a "Cream Puff Waffle".  I perceive you're disappointed about something. Without the name-calling, state your concerns. CM 

Sign In or Register to comment.