Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #4
“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” (Psalm 83:18)
Notice what is NOT in the scripture.
- Trinity not listed or three separate persons
- Jesus is not listed
- Most Trinitarian translator replace God/ Name and substituted LORD in all Capital letters.
In many translations, even where the divine name has been substituted, it does often appear at Psalm 83:18. In this case, to do anything otherwise would render the verse nonsensical. A modern translation which remains faithful to the original Holy Scriptures by including God’s name throughout their translation is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. This translation renders the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and over 230 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament). Commenting on this translation, the respected biblical scholar Jason David BeDuhn in his book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (2003) writes:- ‘The New World Translation is the only accurate translation of the nine we are comparing, since all of the other translations replace the personal name of God, in over six thousand passages, with the euphemistic title ‘Lord’ given by many translators in capitals, as LORD’."
From the article entitled, "The Divine Name on display in St Mary's Church, Wivenhoe"
Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)
Comments
-
"Commenting on this translation, the respected biblical scholar Jason David BeDuhn in his book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (2003) writes:-"
"‘The New World Translation is the only accurate translation of the nine we are comparing, since all of the other translations replace the personal name of God, in over six thousand passages, with the euphemistic title ‘Lord’ given by many translators in capitals, as LORD’."
Perhaps these citations from the very same book regarding the name of Jehovah in the NWT will cause reconsideration for using the above statement without clarification that the quote is speaking strictly of the OT.
This quote below immediately precedes the citation given above; which, in it the author states he does not consider the NWT as being at all accurate with the Greek text of the NT regarding their use of Jehovah.
- "I am referring to use of "Jehovah" in the NW New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book in the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament as the NW does two-hundred-thirty -seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text." (pg. 169)
There is more, but the above and following quote will, I believe, suffice in demonstrating that the specific quotation used by JW.org is slanted to give the impression of complete and high regard of their NW translation by this author which in full reading is not the case.
- "The editors of the NW are making a conjectural emendation when they replace kurios, which would be translated "Lord", with "Jehovah"." (pg. 171)
-
@Pages wrote
This quote below immediately precedes the citation given above; which, in it the author states he does not consider the NWT as being at all accurate with the Greek text of the NT regarding their use of Jehovah.
- "I am referring to use of "Jehovah" in the NW New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book in the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament as the NW does two-hundred-thirty -seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text." (pg. 169)
There is more, but the above and following quote will, I believe, suffice in demonstrating that the specific quotation used by JW.org is slanted to give the impression of complete and high regard of their NW translation by this author which in full reading is not the case.
Your surmise is totally untrue: Rather Jason David BeDuhn states, "But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book in the New Testament."
- Mr. BeDuhn is not referring to the Original Inspired Scriptures but by the 'faulty translations'
It took many years for the true Christians of Jehovah's Witness to piece this truth together. Unknown to the many is the knowledge that a good portion of the Greek NT are quotations from the Hebrew OT.
- Some of the worse translations not only removed God's Sacred Name but also God from scripture.
- "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord, the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)
AT first glance the one being deceived doesn't even recognized he was deceived thinking this must be talking about our Lord Jesus Christ. But if go backwards closer to the original rendering we see an evolving of scripture changing.
However pervious findings of Rev 1:8 show "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the LORD, the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)
- "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the LORD, the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)
- "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the LORD God, the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)
- Today, most translations carry the ERROR in this manner. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming, the All-Powerful." (Revelation 1:8)
When we SEE the phrase the LORD God or the Lord God we recognized that it is specifically speaking about the Divine Name, whether in Hebrew or Greek. In the 1950's as we were translating The New Word Translation, there was a real genuine find called the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's a portion of the Greek Septuagint which is the transliteration from the Inspired Hebrew Old Testament of Isaiah into Greek. Could we find anything in those fragments about the Divine Name?
So, in reference to (Rev 1:8) We know for a fact that the Divine Name was rendered since it is a quote from the Hebrew OT.
- "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." (Genesis 6:3)
- “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)
Many others, but here is one that is commonly misapplied to Jesus.
- "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." (Acts 2:21)
- "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved;" (Joel 2:32)
Not only do the Names in the Greek NT and Hebrew OT bear witness and testimony to the Divine Name but often used by trinitarians that have no knowledge to the wiser. Joel means "Jehovah is God" and Jesus means "Jehovah is Salvation".
-
"Your surmise is totally untrue: Rather Jason David BeDuhn states, "But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book in the New Testament.""
Obviously I don't believe so, and by your own admission above he takes exception to the inaccurate translation method of using "Jehovah" in the NWT.
- "So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament as the NW does two-hundred-thirty -seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text." (pg. 169) (emphasis mine)
And
- "The editors of the NW are making a conjectural emendation when they replace kurios, which would be translated "Lord", with "Jehovah"." (pg. 171)
The author's own words in his book, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, stand against the view you hold on this.
"Mr. BeDuhn is not referring to the Original Inspired Scriptures but by the 'faulty translations'"
There are no "Original Inspired Scriptures" i.e. autographs extant for either the OT or NT. If by this "faulty translations" you consider any translation not having used the autographs to be "faulty" but instead copies of copies, as you prefer; then, the NWT is among what you consider to be "faulty translations". The NWT certainly has no access to any NT autographs, or OT autographs.
"It took many years for the true Christians of Jehovah's Witness to piece this truth together."
And specifically, what truth, and special knowledge, is it that the WT has a premium on that no textual critic has ever possessed. Please enlighten us.
"Unknown to the many is the knowledge that a good portion of the Greek NT are quotations from the Hebrew OT."
Really? Bibles generally make known an OT quotation by the formatting of it being different in the text, along with a cross reference given. So, I completely disagree with your assertion above.
Additionally, many, if not the majority, of the quotations and allusions to the OT within the NT are from the old Greek text, not the MT. Meaning, that the name Jehovah is not found in that quoted passage; which, is the exact point of Jason David BeDuhn in his statements quoted previously, and above, referring to the misuse and inaccuracy of the NWT in the NT using Jehovah.
"When we SEE the phrase the LORD God or the Lord God we recognized that it is specifically speaking about the Divine Name, whether in Hebrew or Greek. In the 1950's as we were translating The New Word Translation, there was a real genuine find called the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's a portion of the Greek Septuagint which is the transliteration from the Inspired Hebrew Old Testament of Isaiah into Greek. Could we find anything in those fragments about the Divine Name? "
First, the picture you posted is written in Hebrew, not Greek, and the tetragram is written in an older form of Paleo Hebrew – so what.
𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 appears in three manuscripts total, written in Greek, all OT books. There is no NT writings found in the extant DSS scrolls – so, the DSS connection you are attempting to make for the NWT using Jehovah in the NT has no merit.
Yes, the DSS were discovered in the late 1940's but were not published for a considerable number of years and only had reference to the OT in that these scrolls are the earliest date of OT text and provide a comparison to the MT. Again, there is no support from this for the use of Jehovah in the NT.
Overall, nothing of substance to substantiate the assertions made by you.
Post edited by Pages on -
@Pages wrote Yes, the DSS were discovered in the late 1940's but were not published for a considerable number of years and only had reference to the OT in that these scrolls are the earliest date of OT text and provide a comparison to the MT. Again, there is no support from this for the use of Jehovah in the NT.
This shows your ministry of deception is being exposed. You can apply your own quote to yourself.
@Pages wrote It is disingenuous and deceitful to keep posting a doctored quote when you have been notified of its nature.
WHY?
- In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Luke 4:8) Jesus quoting the Greek Septuagint ~~~>
- Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear. You must not follow after other gods, any gods of the peoples who are all around you, for Jehovah your God who is in your midst is a God who requires exclusive devotion. Otherwise, the anger of Jehovah your God will blaze against you and he will annihilate you from the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 6:13-15)
@Pages wrote 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 appears in three manuscripts total, written in Greek, all OT books.
@Brother Rando writes - Publicly admitting that God's Name is also written in Greek is a start.
-
"This shows your ministry of deception is being exposed. You can apply your own quote to yourself."
"In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Luke 4:8) Jesus quoting the Greek Septuagint ~~~>"
I believe the Greek NT text speaks for itself on this matter, and once again reinforces the point made by Jason David BeDuhn in his book criticizing the NWT for using Jehovah in the NT. That criticism provided in the quotes from his book, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 169 and 171 which have been previously posted in this thread.
The Greek text of Lk. 4:8:
- “καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· γέγραπται· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.” (Luke 4:8)
"Publicly admitting that God's Name is also written in Greek is a start."
Thank you for the compliment; but, from the above statement I obviously didn't make myself absolutely clear on the use of the tetragram 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 which is Paleo Hebrew script being used in three Greek DSS Old Testament scrolls – there are no Greek NT documents among the DSS. Just to be absolutely clear, 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 is not Greek.
-
The Greek text of Lk. 4:8:
- “καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· γέγραπται· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.” (Luke 4:8)
Notice the Greek doesn't contain Jesus in any of them. So claiming 'Jesus is God' is totally absent from all Greek Manuscripts. Nor can you find such a rendering in any Hebrew Manuscripts.
Notice κύριον τὸν θεόν rendered (ton theon) which refers to Jehovah as the Eternal God not Jesus.
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word with with τὸν θεόν rendered (ton theon) which refers to Jehovah as the Eternal God
- No man has seen (θεόν rendered (theon) which refers to Jehovah as the Eternal God) at anytime,
-
"Notice the Greek doesn't contain Jesus in any of them."
In any of what Greek? I only referred to Lk. 4:8, a single passage, brought up by yourself; though I disagree with the assertion that Jesus isn't in Lk. 4:8 – he, Jesus, is the one speaking.
- “καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· γέγραπται· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.” (Luke 4:8)
"So claiming 'Jesus is God' is totally absent from all Greek Manuscripts."
Who, in this conversation between us, in this thread, has claimed "Jesus is God"? Certainly not me; though, it is in your writing above that broaches the subject and seeks to deny.
"Nor can you find such a rendering in any Hebrew Manuscripts."
Why would you have expectation that the OT should speak directly about the person named Jesus who was yet to be born?
-
@Pages Why would you have expectation that the OT should speak directly about the person named Jesus who was yet to be born?
Born? Like in Proverbs 8? You claimed Wisdom is about God not the Messiah. The Messiah is the word of God given the Name.
For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—
and
So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
Trinitarians proclaim God was exalted and given a name by another angel to become better than the angels? What demonic propaganda. What happen to the co-equal sham. God is co-equal to NOBODY!
-
"Born? Like in Proverbs 8? You claimed Wisdom is about God not the Messiah. The Messiah is the word of God given the Name. "
What relevance this has, if any, to what it is supposedly being responded to is anyone's guess.
But, in bringing up "born" and Pr. 8 again makes this an opportune moment to once again ask you these five questions regarding Pr. 8:24-25 and חוללתי asked in another thread discussion.
You take Pr. 8:22-25 as an absolutely literal with no figurative or metaphoric language being used in this passage; hence, the following questions for you.
Regarding Pr. 8:24-25 and חוללתי:
1) Do you then maintain that Jehovah, himself, was in labor, experiencing pain, writhing, and trembling to give birth to Wisdom?
2) Or would you suggest that Jehovah had a consort and this language is referring to the consort's experience?
3) If you reject the above two options; who then, was present and experiencing these labor pains? It was certainly not Wisdom, herself.
4) Prior to Gen. 3:16, how is it that חוללתי (pain, writhing, and trembling) existed in birth, "to be brought forth (through labor pains)" HALOT?
5) Did physical birth even exist before the world came to be (cf. Gen. 1:28)?
"Trinitarians proclaim God was exalted and given a name
Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Father was exalted (Heb. 1:1-4).
by another angel to become better than the angels?
More detail is you please; I'm not aware of an angel giving a name to another angel in the book of Hebrews, or Philippians.
What demonic propaganda. What happen to the co-equal sham. God is co-equal to NOBODY!"
Welcome to your opinions of course; but, maybe you can provide more detail on "the co-equal sham"? No one I'm aware of on these forums has asserted "God is co-equal"; what has in fact been asserted is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal.
-
@Pages - Welcome to your opinions of course; but, maybe you can provide more detail on "the co-equal sham"? No one I'm aware of on these forums has asserted "God is co-equal"; what has in fact been asserted is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal.
Trinitarians are tricky! Notice @Pages deception of not knowing this quote below.
@C Mc writes "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Beware of such deceivers against Christ. "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 1:7)
-
Addressed in the Deity of Jesus thread.
-
Notice @Pages pushes the Pagan Dogma against the Deity of Christ? Jesus Christ is always missing from trinitarian propaganda. Could it be that Jesus Christ was omitted from the trinity doctrine because they were unbelievers in Jesus Christ?
A Scripture that is wormwood to trinitarians.
- Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. (Matthew 16:16)
For any trinitarian and @Pages. If Jesus is the Son of God, which God is he the Son OF?
- Because trinitarians are three faced, they turn red, hide their tails, and run back into the hole they came from.
-
"Notice @Pages pushes the Pagan Dogma against the Deity of Christ? Jesus Christ is always missing from trinitarian propaganda. Could it be that Jesus Christ was omitted from the trinity doctrine because they were unbelievers in Jesus Christ?"
Christ is a title and carries a specific definite meaning for that office as it is applied to Jesus, of which we're speaking; Jesus, the (eternal, in my view) Son of God, called the Christ; who is sent by the Father to give his life as a ransom for many, providing redemption for all who believe in his name.
Therefore, I am in complete disagreement with your statement above on the basis of it having any reality on the subject concerning the supposed omission of Jesus who holds the office of Christ within trinitarian doctrine.
Consider picking up this inexpensive resource in Logos for your library.
-
@Pages - Christ is a title and carries a specific definite meaning for that office as it is applied to Jesus, of which we're speaking; Jesus, the (eternal, in my view) Son of God, called the Christ; who is sent by the Father to give his life as a ransom for many, providing redemption for all who believe in his name.
Has you already KNOW- Jesus Christ is far removed from the trinity doctrine which is the reason you refuse to post yours. A servant is not greater his than Master.
- Look! here is my servant; I hold him, my chosen one, in whom my soul delights. I have ⌊put⌋ my spirit on him; he will bring justice forth to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)
- Look, my servant shall achieve success; he shall be exalted, and he shall be lifted up, and he shall be very high. (Isaiah 52:13)
- Truly, truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John 13:16)
Anyways, Jesus was co-existent then the scripture would of never stated, "In the Beginning was the Word"
- For just as the Father has life in himself, thus also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. (John 5:26)
- Therefore having life in himself was a result of a fine gift, an inheritance. (Hebrews 1:4)
-
Welcome to your opinion along with the non-relevant response.
-
Not My Opinion. Quotes from Your Bible:
Has you already KNOW- Jesus Christ is far removed from the trinity doctrine which is the reason you refuse to post yours. A servant is not greater his than Master.
- Look! here is my servant; I hold him, my chosen one, in whom my soul delights. I have ⌊put⌋ my spirit on him; he will bring justice forth to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)
- Look, my servant shall achieve success; he shall be exalted, and he shall be lifted up, and he shall be very high. (Isaiah 52:13)
- Truly, truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John 13:16)
-
"Not My Opinion. Quotes from Your Bible:"
I'm unable to resist this, "Quotes from Your Bible:", meaning the bible you have, and read, doesn't contain those texts? Are you reading the Vulgate again?
And yes, you are welcome to your opinions and the posting of irrelevant material that is mistakenly considered to somehow be an informative and developed response in a discussion.
-
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
Or should we put that @Bill_Coley spin on it?
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Or should we put that @Bill_Coley spin on it?
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
My "spin" on what?
In what appears to be another self-referential argument, you first present as a quotation the very same quotation you then cite, apparently as reflective of my "spin" on something. I assure you, @Brother Rando, that's not the way I "spin" any argument.
And FWIW, the NRSV makes no mention of any claims of "modern critics" regarding the baptismal formula in Matthew 28.19. Perhaps an NRSV study Bible includes such a note, but the translation itself does not. (The translation offers a footnote labeled "d" to the end of Matthew 28.20 - "Other ancient authorities add Amen.")
-
@Bill_Coley - And FWIW, the NRSV makes no mention of any claims of "modern critics" regarding the baptismal formula in Matthew 28.19. Perhaps an NRSV study Bible includes such a note, but the translation itself does not. (The translation offers a footnote labeled "d" to the end of Matthew 28.20 - "Other ancient authorities add Amen.")
Am I not a Modern Critic? I don't need research outside the Bible but I can. Peter who autographed Multiple Inspired Epistles taught a baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Where is Jesus Christ in Your trinity Doctrine?? Post it...
- And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
Anywho, the scriptures are clear, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (Ephesians 4:5)
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
See the Catholic Dogma (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61? <~~~~~ Are these books Inspired?
The wording is the same wording used in the Didache Chapter Seven and Verse One. An apostate teaching that was introduced deceptively by the Superfine Apostles who left Christ.
The Didache falsely claims to be the Lord's teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. Not only did these Apostates reject the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ, but you will also notice the denial of Baptism by complete water immersion. Also, you will see they have become like the Pharisees adding rules and regulations that the one being baptized is to Fast for one or two days. LOL.... at least they didn't say THREE days!
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Am I not a Modern Critic? I don't need research outside the Bible but I can. Peter who autographed Multiple Inspired Epistles taught a baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Where is Jesus Christ in Your trinity Doctrine?? Post it...
In your previous post, you wrote:
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
That is, YOU quoted from a resource that YOU called the "New Revised Standard Version." My response was to report that the New Revised Standard Version, which is a Bible translation, does NOT include the words you attributed to it via quotation marks. Whether you are a "modern critic" is not relevant to the fact that the words you attributed to the New Revised Standard Version are not in the New Revised Standard Version.
As a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post.
The remainder of your post to which I'm replying here reflects your objections to issues that don't interest me. But I wish you would tell me what your reference to an "@Bill_Coley spin" meant in THIS POST. To what topic, verse, or assertion were you considering the application of such a "spin," and what would have been the result had you completed one?
-
"New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19: Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
Neither the first 1989 edition or now current NRSVue edition show that notation for Mt. 28:19. This alleged margin note? is only found on a certain type of websites having a number of manipulated and proven spurious citations available to prove their viewpoint. My guess, is that it is a mis-attributed quote from some other source mistakenly applied to the NRSV. Demonstrating the total lack of care given to validating a quote, or citation, if it reads well for one's point of view.
With that said, Mt. 28:19, or commentary on it, is without any relevance to this particular discussion.
I consider the above as just another distraction from what was under discussion several posts ago in this thread, or even the very beginning posts regarding the NWT's use of Jehovah in the NT.
-
@Bill_Coley - As a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post.
This is not the first time a trinitarian has omitted Christ. The trinity doctrine is anti-Christ and antichristian always seeking to remove CHRIST and inserts it's own Dogma
Four trinitarians four false gospels of Jesus Christ.
- @Bill_Coley As a follower of Jesus
Christwho does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post. - @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christ - @C Mc "Jesus
Christis God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. JesusChristis Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. - @Pages when referring to the trinity doctrine never mentions Jesus Christ
- @Bill_Coley As a follower of Jesus
-
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
-
@Brother Rando posted:
@Bill_Coley - As a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post.
This is not the first time a trinitarian has omitted Christ. The trinity doctrine is anti-Christ and antichristian always seeking to remove CHRIST and inserts it's own Dogma
Again you are mistaken about an objective fact.
In my previous post I referred to myself as "a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology." By definition, it's not possible to be BOTH a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology AND a Trinitarian. There is no overlap in the Venn diagram that displays both of those options. I am not a Trinitarian. In support of my Christological views, as you would discover were you to review my hundreds of forum posts on the subject over the years, I employ many of the texts you have cited in your posts. You and I agree that Jesus was not God.
In addition, neither do I "omit Christ" from my personal theology, but I choose to engage you on the merely "highly unlikely" task of persuading you to accept objective facts, rather than the "patently impossible" task of persuading you to accept points of view different from yours own.
A simple Logos search of the NT found more than 600 (more than 700 verses in some translations) in which Jesus is named as "Jesus," not "Jesus Christ." Is it your view that those hundreds of verses all "omit Christ"? Do you contend that since they fail to add "Christ" to Jesus, those verses, too - or at least their composers - are Trinitarians?
-
@Bill_Coley - Again you are mistaken about an objective fact.
In my previous post I referred to myself as "a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology." By definition, it's not possible to be BOTH a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology AND a Trinitarian. There is no overlap in the Venn diagram that displays both of those options. I am not a Trinitarian. In support of my Christological views, as you would discover were you to review my hundreds of forum posts on the subject over the years, I employ many of the texts you have cited in your posts. You and I agree that Jesus was not God.
In addition, neither do I "omit Christ" from my personal theology, but I choose to engage you on the merely "highly unlikely" task of persuading you to accept objective facts, rather than the "patently impossible" task of persuading you to accept points of view different from yours own.
Here is your own omission of
Christ.@Bill_Coley -@Bill_Coley As a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post.
The term is trinity apologist.
Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. There is only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity also refutes modalism. Modalism is the belief that God is only one Person who appears in different modes at different times. The three Persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously. They are distinct and eternal Persons in the one God.
When a trinitarian refuses to provide their trinity doctrine or fails to provide a simple that states their trinity doctrine. Most of them default to Modalism which refutes the trinity by stating without scripture that 'Jesus is God".
Because both doctrine refute Christ as Lord and Savior the trinitarian goes from one pagan doctrine to the next omitting Christ among themselves.
You yourself @Bill_Coley have adjoined with them in this deception. Here is your own omission of
Christ:@Bill_Coley -@Bill_Coley As a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post.
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Here is your own omission of
Christ.@Bill_Coley -@Bill_Coley As a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post.
To make sure I understand what you mean by an "omission of
Christ," please address each of the following very simple yes/no questions:1) When in THIS POST you wrote, "Many others, but here is one that is commonly misapplied to Jesus," did you "omit
Christ"?2) When in THIS POST you wrote, "Anyways, Jesus was co-existent then the scripture would of never stated, 'In the Beginning was the Word,'" did you "omit
Christ"?3) When in THIS POST and from The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge you chose to quote these words: "Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus," did you quote from a resource whose author at least twice "omitted
Christ"?If your answer to each of those questions is "yes," then I will acknowledge that I too "omitted
Christ" in my previous post. If, however, your answer to any of those questions is "no," then I will deny that I "omittedChrist" in my previous post.The term is trinity apologist.
In THIS POST your term for me was "Trinitarian," NOT "trinity apologist." Please advise as to which term you're actually applying to me. (FYI, given that an "apologist" is one who defends a given, usually controversial, view, I am by no means a "trinity apologist" either. I certainly respect Trinitarian theology, but in no way do I embrace or defend it.)
You yourself @Bill_Coley have adjoined with them in this deception. Here is your own omission of
Christ:As soon as I see your answers to the three questions presented above, I will know whether to confess to omitting
Christ. -
@Bill_Coley - As soon as I see your answers to the three questions presented above, I will know whether to confess to omitting
Christ.That's like when satan was testing Jesus Christ, to do this or do that. I'm happy Jesus Christ did not do a single thing to appease satan when he was trying to trick him.
Even though you use slick words like "catholic" and then claim there is nothing Catholic about using the word "catholic" that came about in the 4th century after a convention is simply double tongued "Catholic Dogma"
Difference between Double-tongued and Two-faced
Double-tongued as an adjective is saying one thing to one person and something different to another; double talking; deceitful in speech. while Two-faced as an adjective is having two faces or plane surfaces Double-tongued Part of speech: adjective
-
@Brother Rando posted:
That's like when satan was testing Jesus Christ, to do this or do that. I'm happy Jesus Christ did not do a single thing to appease satan when he was trying to trick him.
Even though you use slick words like "catholic" and then claim there is nothing Catholic about using the word "catholic" that came about in the 4th century after a convention is simply double tongued "Catholic Dogma"
In my previous post, I asked you four questions, three of which required a simple "yes" or "no" response, while the fourth required nothing more than either the word "Trinitarian" or the words "Trinity apologist." In your reply, you chose not to address any of them.
- So you're willing to accuse people of "omitting
Christ," but you're not willing to declare whether you hold yourself accountable to your own definition of that offense. - And though my hundreds of post on the subject make abundantly clear that I am clearly neither, you're willing to accuse me of being both a "Trinitarian" and a "Trinity apologist." But when challenged, you're not willing to specify which term you actually believe applies to me.
And in other news, the sun set in the west this evening and will rise in the east tomorrow.
- So you're willing to accuse people of "omitting
-
@Brother Rando responding to @Bill_Coley - Even though you use slick words like "catholic" and then claim there is nothing Catholic about using the word "catholic" that came about in the 4th century after a convention is simply double tongued "Catholic Dogma"
Trinitarians are tricky! Notice @Pages deception of not knowing this quote below.
@C Mc writes "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Beware of such deceivers against Christ. "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 1:7).
