Can you Spot the Trinity?

[biker]

One good example is in the Book of Mark:

Talitha cum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
^
The Greek had no word meaning the same as the Aramaic and left it in Aramaic.

 

[biker]

41 Και πήρε το κορίτσι από το χέρι, και της είπε, Talitha cumi · που ερμηνεύεται, Ντάσελ, σας λέω, σηκωθείτε.

 

[biker]

Same verse in the "original" Aramaic


ܘܐܚܕ ܒܐܝܕܗ ܕܛܠܝܬܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܛܠܝܬܐ ܩܘܡܝ
41 And He took the idah d’talitha {the hand of the young girl}, and said unto her, “Talitha qumi {Young girl, arise}!”

 

[CS1]

Thanks for your answer!

I just ask because many people say that Ignatius endorsed the idea that the bread and wine of communion are the actual body and blood of Jesus.

Not very many people here on Christian chat have that view of the Eucharist.

the is false doctrine known as "Transubstantiation" not all catholics believe in it LOL.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So then, which view is correct and which one is BLASPHEMOUS?

One does not have to consult extra-biblical sources (including the ECF) to determine the correct view of the Trinity. Jesus presented the Trinity plainly in Matthew 28:9, and so did John in 1 John 5:7 (which is authentic Scripture with overwhelming support)

THE TRIUNE GODHEAD (ALSO CALLED THE HOLY TRINITY)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

These verses cannot be separated from those that plainly state that Jesus is God. Therefore He is God the Word or God the Son.

 

[biker]

One does not have to consult extra-biblical sources (including the ECF) to determine the correct view of the Trinity. Jesus presented the Trinity plainly in Matthew 28:9, and so did John in 1 John 5:7 (which is authentic Scripture with overwhelming support)

THE TRIUNE GODHEAD (ALSO CALLED THE HOLY TRINITY)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

These verses cannot be separated from those that plainly state that Jesus is God. Therefore He is God the Word or God the Son.

What if I could prove to you the manuscripts in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin Vulgate do not make the same claim as the English KJV?

1 John 5:6-8
Aramaic:
ܗܢܘ ܕܐܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܠܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ
6 This is The One who came by means of The Water and The Blood; Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}. It wasn't of The Water alone, but rather, by The Water and The Blood.

ܘܪܘܚܐ ܡܣܗܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܫܪܪܐ
7 And The Rukha {The Spirit} testifies; because that One, The Rukha {The Spirit}, is The Truth.

ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܣܗܕܝܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܘܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܗܘܢ ܒܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ
8 And there are three testifying: The Rukha {The Spirit}, and The Water, and The Blood. And these three are in One.
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


Greek:
6 This is He Who is coming through water and blood and spirit - Jesus Christ - not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And the spirit it is which is testifying, for the spirit is the truth,
7 seeing that three there are that are testifying,
8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for the one thing."
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


Latin Vulgate:
6 hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas

This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.

7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

And there are Three who give testimony

8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


These 3 versions are from 1600, 1500, and 1100 years BEFORE THE KJV WAS EVER WRITTEN. So why does the KJV falsey add the Father-Son-Holy Spirit when the older versions DO NOT?

 

[biker]

As far as Matthew 28:19, EVERY SCHOLAR will confirm that Luke is the mirror image to the Book of Matthew.

So let's look at Luke 24:47

Aramaic:

ܘܕܢܬܟܪܙ ܒܫܡܗ ܬܝܒܘܬܐ ܠܫܘܒܩܢܐ ܕܚܛܗܐ ܒܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܡܡܐ ܘܫܘܪܝܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܐܘܪܫܠܡ
47 And that in His Name repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be preached among all the Amme {the Peoples/the Nations/the Gentiles}, and the beginning should be from Urishlim {Jerusalem}.
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.


Greek:
47 and there is to be heralded in His name repentance for the pardon of sins, to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.


Latin Vulgate:
47 et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum in omnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierosolyma

And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.


KJV:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.




If Matthew 28:19 is legit, then Luke 24:47 should say the same thing!

 

[biker]

history - Was the text of Matthew 28:19 changed? - Biblical ...
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/...
The correct reading of Matthew 28:19 appears to be in Luke 24:47: Luke 24:47 (NIV) 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.


The gospels of Mathew and Luke are based on Mark. Mark was written about 60AD. Mathew used Mark, along with another source (called Q), and composed his gospel sometime after 70AD. Luke wrote his gospel also by using Mark and a sayings source (Q). As a consequence, much of the material is identical, or mostly the same.

 

[biker]

As far as Matthew 28:19, EVERY SCHOLAR will confirm that Luke is the mirror image to the Book of Matthew.

So let's look at Luke 24:47

Aramaic:

ܘܕܢܬܟܪܙ ܒܫܡܗ ܬܝܒܘܬܐ ܠܫܘܒܩܢܐ ܕܚܛܗܐ ܒܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܡܡܐ ܘܫܘܪܝܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܐܘܪܫܠܡ
47 And that in His Name repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be preached among all the Amme {the Peoples/the Nations/the Gentiles}, and the beginning should be from Urishlim {Jerusalem}.
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.


Greek:
47 and there is to be heralded in His name repentance for the pardon of sins, to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.


Latin Vulgate:
47 et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum in omnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierosolyma

And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.


KJV:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
^
No Father-Son-Holy Spirit. In HIS NAME (Jesus) is what is commanded to the Disciples before His Ascension.




If Matthew 28:19 is legit, then Luke 24:47 should say the same thing!

In fact, when we look at Luke's account of what Jesus "really commanded" to His Disciples, it makes better sense why we see Peter, Timothy, and Paul baptizing in water using "In the Name of Jesus" all throughout the Book of Acts.

 

[Kolistus]

Well then, that sheds new light!

And even drives the question I had presented:




Why is the trinity view of today, the year 2020, been proven to be vastly different and unrecognizable to the trinity view of 325 AD?

Why do modern day trinity scholars even admit there is such a difference?

Is it because in 325 AD they had access to more reliable and authentic resources and today they go by a translation of a translation known as the English KJV?

One thing is for certain, either the 325 AD view prior to the KJV Bible or the modern day view with the KJV Bible is proving that 1 view is correct and the other view is BLASPHEMOUS.

So then, which view is correct and which one is BLASPHEMOUS?

What are the differences between the trinity view of today and 325 AD?

 

[CS1]

i'm not sure what you are asking?

 

[Dan_473]

One good example is in the Book of Mark:

Talitha cum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
^
The Greek had no word meaning the same as the Aramaic and left it in Aramaic.

I'm not sure if I'm following you here or not.

Mark 5: 41 Taking the child by the hand, he said to her, "Talitha cumi!" which means, being interpreted, "Girl, I tell you, get up!"

The meaning of "Talitha cumi!" seems to be handled just fine by the Greek which translates into English as
"Girl, I tell you, get up!"
?

 

[Dan_473]

As far as Matthew 28:19, EVERY SCHOLAR will confirm that Luke is the mirror image to the Book of Matthew.

I'm not sure why you're saying that. Luke has many parables that Matthew does not.
And I believe Matthew has some the Luke does not.

 

[biker]

I'm not sure if I'm following you here or not.

Mark 5: 41 Taking the child by the hand, he said to her, "Talitha cumi!" which means, being interpreted, "Girl, I tell you, get up!"

The meaning of "Talitha cumi!" seems to be handled just fine by the Greek which translates into English as
"Girl, I tell you, get up!"
?

The (Girl. Get up) is add in long after the Greek translation. It's not specified what it means in the Greek text, it's only defined in the English texts. Which generally would mean the English looked it up from the Aramaic.

 

[biker]

I'm not sure why you're saying that. Luke has many parables that Matthew does not.
And I believe Matthew has some the Luke does not.

This is true, but the ending of both Matthew and Luke have Jesus giving final commands to His Disciples before Ascending. And both accounts Matthew 28:19/Luke 24:47 should be word for word or at least similar. But from Luke's version, we understand why the Apostles baptized in Jesus Name in the Book of Acts. From Matthews added in later on version, it appears as if the Apostles are disobeying Christ. So yes, there is a big difference and it reveals foolery has taken place!

 

[biker]

What are the differences between the trinity view of today and 325 AD?

Good Question!

From the KJV we perceive the Godhead are 3 Persons, that is today's modern version of the Trinity.

In 325 AD, the Trinity was defined as:

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.
^

What this is literally saying, that the WORD and WISDOM (Spirit) are not separate on their own, because they come from within God Himself and remain as Him.



^
From that, it's clear they do not believe in Persons and that the Spirit still remains in God and the Word is with God because it is God's Word! Basically, they do not believe they are separated into their own beings, but they believe they remain in the One Being at all times.


We also must remember, they did not have a version of the King James that makes the Godhead appear like a person, they had more original and authentic versions. Therefore, something has been translated incorrectly.

 

[biker]

I'm not sure why you're saying that. Luke has many parables that Matthew does not.
And I believe Matthew has some the Luke does not.

Just do a random check for yourself. You will see literally hundreds of scholars claiming the Matthew 28:19 we currently have was not what Matthew 28:19 originally claimed. And that is basically because Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts and the Disciples/Apostles are Baptizing according to Luke's 24:47 version.

Between Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 it is so far off that red lights flash when you compare the 2.

1. They speak of the same event before Jesus' Ascension
2. They are not even remotely the same Command from Jesus
3. We see the Apostles obeying Jesus' Command from Luke's version in Book of Acts
4. It's rather clear looking at the Book of Acts and then at Luke's 24:47 that Matthew 28:19 should be stating the same thing

 

[Nehemiah6]

Just do a random check for yourself. You will see literally hundreds of scholars claiming the Matthew 28:19 we currently have was not what Matthew 28:19 originally claimed.

Beware of scholars and their hidden agendas. Many *scholars* are in the habit of lying about the Scriptures and texts of the Scriptures.

Matthew 28:19 is genuine Scripture and has always been accepted as such. The Aramaic Peshitta is the earliest translation of the Bible from the 2nd century, and it includes this verse. Jerome's Latin Vulgate from the 4th century also includes this verse.

VULGATE
euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

DOUAY-RHEIMS PARALLEL TRANSLATION
Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

People have to make a choice when they are told lies by the scholars: (1) reject every attack on Scripture or (2) believe the scholars and be deceived. If you believe the scholars then Acts 8:37 is also absent from the Bible, but then the passage becomes nonsensical.

 

[biker]

Beware of scholars and their hidden agendas. Many *scholars* are in the habit of lying about the Scriptures and texts of the Scriptures.

Matthew 28:19 is genuine Scripture and has always been accepted as such. The Aramaic Peshitta is the earliest translation of the Bible from the 2nd century, and it includes this verse. Jerome's Latin Vulgate from the 4th century also includes this verse.

VULGATE
euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

DOUAY-RHEIMS PARALLEL TRANSLATION
Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

People have to make a choice when they are told lies by the scholars: (1) reject every attack on Scripture or (2) believe the scholars and be deceived. If you believe the scholars then Acts 8:37 is also absent from the Bible, but then the passage becomes nonsensical.

What Lies?


When we know that Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 ARE THE SAME VERSE



1. They speak of the same event before Jesus' Ascension
2. They are not even remotely the same Command from Jesus
3. We see the Apostles obeying Jesus' Command from Luke's version in Book of Acts
4. It's rather clear looking at the Book of Acts and then at Luke's 24:47 that Matthew 28:19 should be stating the same thing



You really believe that Matthew got it right and Luke got it wrong describing the SAME EVENT, SAME COMMAND, both took place and afterwards Jesus Ascends?

Matthew 28:19 is only accepted and Luke 24:47 is denied because of personal choice.

Matthew, Mark, Luke are basically the SAME BOOK!
So, why would at the last point when Jesus is with His Disciples would He Command them to do something and in the Book of Acts we see them obeying Luke's version but not Matthew's version?

 

[biker]

This is from my own studies!

Clearly, YOU were not aware that Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47 were the SAME EVENT before the Ascension!
Clearly, you have never cross referenced the Gospels to see how identical they actually are!
Clearly, you accepted a version without even knowing that Luke proves that Matthew 28:19 currently is an add on!