Can you Spot the Trinity?
- Thread starter Dave-L
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's obvious what has happened because we know Peter, Timothy, and Paul ALL Baptized in Jesus Name, just like Luke 24:47 Jesus Commanded the Disciples to do before He Ascended!
To refuse Luke's version and not believe Matthew was clearly changed, is biased because of personal belief.
What if I am correct, as I have given proper clues about.
Are you willing to stand before God and tell Him Matthew 28:19 is more correct than Luke 24:47, even when the Apostles followed Luke's version, not Matthew's?
To refuse Luke's version and not believe Matthew was clearly changed, is biased because of personal belief.
What if I am correct, as I have given proper clues about.
Are you willing to stand before God and tell Him Matthew 28:19 is more correct than Luke 24:47, even when the Apostles followed Luke's version, not Matthew's?
Brother,
For me, this is all about following specifically what God Himself, the WORD, Commanded His Disciples to do and nothing else. Because being right or wrong in this debate CANNOT SAVE MY SOUL! But if Luke's version is the correct version, and Matthew's is not, I want to follow specifically what Christ Commanded us to do!
And I believe since we see Christ's own Disciples following Luke 24:47, then I should be following Luke 24:47!
Because I believe originally Matthew 28:19 also said the same as Luke 24:47!
For me, this is all about following specifically what God Himself, the WORD, Commanded His Disciples to do and nothing else. Because being right or wrong in this debate CANNOT SAVE MY SOUL! But if Luke's version is the correct version, and Matthew's is not, I want to follow specifically what Christ Commanded us to do!
And I believe since we see Christ's own Disciples following Luke 24:47, then I should be following Luke 24:47!
Because I believe originally Matthew 28:19 also said the same as Luke 24:47!
It looks to me like it does occur in the Greek text. Which Greek text are you looking at?
καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ· Ταλιθα [aw]κουμ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον· Τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, [ax]ἔγειρε.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5&version=SBLGNT
καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ· Ταλιθα [aw]κουμ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον· Τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, [ax]ἔγειρε.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5&version=SBLGNT
I believe Matthew 28 and Luke 24 are referring to two different events.
After his resurrection, Jesus appears to his disciples over a period of 40 days.
Matthew 28 takes place in Galilee, Luke 24 takes place near Jerusalem.
I agree that Matthew 28 presents a different formulation for baptism then the book of Acts does.
But I think any problem goes away when one realizes that the phrase "in the name of" can easily mean "based on the reputation of".
After his resurrection, Jesus appears to his disciples over a period of 40 days.
Matthew 28 takes place in Galilee, Luke 24 takes place near Jerusalem.
I agree that Matthew 28 presents a different formulation for baptism then the book of Acts does.
But I think any problem goes away when one realizes that the phrase "in the name of" can easily mean "based on the reputation of".
Yes, and the version you are reading is less than 100 years old. Meaning, they used another form of Greek, not Koine for (little girl, arise)
Aramaic:
Talitha cum
to Greek Translation:
Ταλίτα cum
Greek:
Ταλίτα cum
to English :
Talita cum
You have to directly translate from Aramaic in order to know it means Girl, arise!
English:
little girl, arise
to Greek Translation:
κοριτσάκι, σηκωθείτε
English:
little girl, arise
to Aramaic Translation:
Talita cum
You cannot translate Talita cum from Aramaic to Greek, but you can translate Aramaic to English and then to Greek.
This is why the your version (less than 100 years old) has it because it's from the English, not the Aramaic to Greek!
That's probably true, but are these the same scholars that say that most of what is in the Gospels didn't actually happen?
Nestle's version has what people are used to seeing
https://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/280001/289999/
But before we go too far, are you saying that the text that we have of Matthew has been corrupted? Or that the book of Matthew was never accurate in the first place?
Nestle's version has what people are used to seeing
https://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/280001/289999/
But before we go too far, are you saying that the text that we have of Matthew has been corrupted? Or that the book of Matthew was never accurate in the first place?
All 3 versions show it's the same EVENT because afterwards Jesus Ascends.
Interesting, because even Mark states after they meet Jesus Ascended
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mark no mention of Father-Son-Holy Spirit Baptism!
Luke's version He also ascends after:
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Luke no mention of Father-Son-Holy Spirit Baptism!
Only Matthew makes that claim and Mark puts them in the Mountains of Galilee like Matthew and Mark has no mention like Matthew!
Interesting, because even Mark states after they meet Jesus Ascended
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mark no mention of Father-Son-Holy Spirit Baptism!
Luke's version He also ascends after:
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Luke no mention of Father-Son-Holy Spirit Baptism!
Only Matthew makes that claim and Mark puts them in the Mountains of Galilee like Matthew and Mark has no mention like Matthew!
What we do know, is the Book of Acts shows which version the Apostles Baptized in, Luke's!
Mark does mention Jesus said, In My NAME, they could have concluded that was Baptize as well like in Luke.
But Matthew is same place on the map as Mark and has a whole different version of the Baptismal Formula than Mark and Luke!
But it's obvious using Mark's version that after Matthew, like in Mark and Luke Jesus Ascended.
Mark does mention Jesus said, In My NAME, they could have concluded that was Baptize as well like in Luke.
But Matthew is same place on the map as Mark and has a whole different version of the Baptismal Formula than Mark and Luke!
But it's obvious using Mark's version that after Matthew, like in Mark and Luke Jesus Ascended.
Yes, technically the SBLGNT is less than 100 years old.
But it was produced by looking at many ancient Greek texts to try to get back to what the autograph said. There are several critical editions around, I like this one because it is free to download.
But do you believe that the majority of the ancient Greek texts differ substantially for the verse in question?
But it was produced by looking at many ancient Greek texts to try to get back to what the autograph said. There are several critical editions around, I like this one because it is free to download.
But do you believe that the majority of the ancient Greek texts differ substantially for the verse in question?
No, but there is a tradition that first Century Church People were "Oneness."
Tertullian made a famous quote when he introduced his idea of the Trinity, he stated, he was opposed by the MAJORITY!
So clearly, the Early Church was Trinity how I showed from the Church Fathers or Oneness or Tertullian would not claim he was opposed by the MAJORITY!
^
I said that to also say, the Catholic Catechism claims People till the 4th Century Baptized Jesus Name and then it was changed.
Read last Paragraph:
^
If this is true, the first Church was Baptizing in Name of Jesus, and they changed it in the 4th Century, maybe they changed Matthew 28:19 at that time since they were now Baptizing in the "Titles?"
It's just a guess here.
But clearly from Tertullian and the Catechism, the first Church was not Trinity. So maybe when it became Trinitarian, they changed some things to help the idealism??? Just a guess! I already showed where the Titles were not in the Aramaic, Greek, or Latin Vulgate 1 John 5:6-8 like in the KJV. So maybe they were just helping this new idea along??? Just a Guess!
It looks to me like Matthew doesn't say that Jesus ascended immediately in chapter 28. I believe Matthew doesn't mention Jesus ascending in that chapter.
Here they are in Galilee
Matthew 28: 16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them. 17 When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted.
In Luke they are in Jerusalem
Luke 24: 33 They rose up that very hour, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them.
Many people say that the part of Mark 16 that you are quoting from later in your post was not part of the original book of Mark. Whether it was or not is not critical to me at this point. But it probably would be a good idea to agree on a definitive text, so that we are both looking at the same thing!
Here they are in Galilee
Matthew 28: 16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them. 17 When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted.
In Luke they are in Jerusalem
Luke 24: 33 They rose up that very hour, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them.
Many people say that the part of Mark 16 that you are quoting from later in your post was not part of the original book of Mark. Whether it was or not is not critical to me at this point. But it probably would be a good idea to agree on a definitive text, so that we are both looking at the same thing!
