Can you Spot the Trinity?

[biker]

So, you use modern Greek for Ancient text meanings?

 

[Dan_473]

I only think Matthew 28:19 has been messed with. The rest should make no difference. And I think it was only changed because they were Baptizing in Jesus Name for the first 4 Centuries. We must remember, only the Church Bishops and Fathers had access. The majority of humans could not read/write. They would not know if Matthew 28:19/Luke 24:47 lined up or not. It's not like if we found a Bible today that had a different version. We all read/write and be like that ain't gonna fly! It was not like that all back then. People assumed Preachers did not lie or steal from you like we know some very well do.

I disagree that they were baptizing in Jesus name only for the first four centuries after Jesus. We are talking about up until about 430 ad?

For example, the didache is usually dated to about 50 to 120 ad. It uses the trinitarian formula.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Jesus instructs His Disciples to go to Jerusalem and stay until the Promise arrives. The upper Room happens in Jerusalem. The first Church is in Jerusalem. Whether they went back from Galilee or Bethany does not concern me. I just know where they were Commanded to be.

I think it's very important! Jesus' final Ascent after the 40 days would have taken place from somewhere.

If it was Galilee, then Luke is incorrect.
If it was Bethany, then the discourse in Matthew 28 is not just before his ascent.

(The part in Mark 16 where Jesus ascends is not in the Greek text we agreed to use.)

 

[biker]

You use your modern version and I will use what they used to translate the Bible and see how close it is. I just cannot wrap my head around a new version for something ancient. It's the New King James vs the KJV or the 1611 version.

 

[Dan_473]

Mine ends the same:

20 teaching them to be keeping all, whatever I direct you. And lo! I am with you all the days till the conclusion of the eon! Amen!"

No, the main body of the text ends with "age".

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

In the previous post I copied the part from the footnote so you could see why they decided on what they did.

 

[Dan_473]

That's called Ancient Greek. Might be why it did not line up.

Yes it is ancient Greek, the SBLGNT that we agreed to use.

 

[biker]

I disagree that they were baptizing in Jesus name only for the first four centuries after Jesus. We are talking about up until about 430 ad?

For example, the didache is usually dated to about 50 to 120 ad. It uses the trinitarian formula.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

I think the Didache is a fake.
It claims it's from the Apostles, teaches fasting (we never see the Disciples/Apostles ever fast).
And it teach running water or sprinkle water for baptizing and we clearly see the apostles dunking full immersed.

It's clearly a Catholic literature trying to be passed off as the Apostles.

And the dating of 50-120 AD is verbal, but according to the actual papyrus: Late 4th Century:

Didache 6-16 - University of Pennsylvania
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/didache/didache.htm
(2) POxy is the Greek Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1782, dating from the late fourth century, which consists of two fragments of a codex, and preserves Didache 1.3b-4a and 2.7b--3.2a in a slightly variant form (with some significant expansion) from H.

I think it's very important! Jesus' final Ascent after the 40 days would have taken place from somewhere.

If it was Galilee, then Luke is incorrect.
If it was Bethany, then the discourse in Matthew 28 is not just before his ascent.

(The part in Mark 16 where Jesus ascends is not in the Greek text we agreed to use.)

19 The Lord, indeed, then, after speaking with them, was taken up into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God."
Ὁ μὲν οὖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ.

However, it is in the Ancient Greek.

I don't know, Brother, using a version that removes Scripture when the ancient texts have that Scripture is interesting.

Why would that text be in the ancient version but modern day scholars claim it was an add on.

What's in Mark 16 that disproves their stance they desperately want it removed?

 

[biker]

Yes it is ancient Greek, the SBLGNT that we agreed to use.

OK, but that removes proof that Mark, written in 60 AD, and Matthew copied from it.

 

[biker]

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.

 

[Dan_473]

So, you use modern Greek for Ancient text meanings?

No, ancient Greek word meanings when using ancient Greek texts.

 

[Dan_473]

You use your modern version and I will use what they used to translate the Bible and see how close it is. I just cannot wrap my head around a new version for something ancient. It's the New King James vs the KJV or the 1611 version.

You use your modern version and I will use what they used to translate the Bible and see how close it is.

What do you mean by modern version? Do you mean the SBLGNT? It's basically a tool, a time-saver. It's easier than traveling to specialized libraries or museums and asking to see the ancient texts they have there.
Some texts like the codex vaticanus are available on the internet, but I find them very hard to read!

 

[Nehemiah6]

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.

You are simply REGURGITATING the false ideas of the Form Critics who are theological liberals to the core. Why don't you give us a Scripture verse which says that Mathew and Luke plagiarized Mark, or borrowed heavily from Mark? In fact I could prove your FALLACY by lining up the three Gospels and showing that each one was independently inspired.

 

[biker]

You are simply REGURGITATING the false ideas of the Form Critics who are theological liberals to the core. Why don't you give us a Scripture verse which says that Mathew and Luke plagiarized Mark, or borrowed heavily from Mark? In fact I could prove your FALLACY by lining up the three Gospels and showing that each one was independently inspired.

I only used that reference as a reference for what I have figured out myself. Between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are close enough that had you not known these people from the Bible itself, you could conclude one person wrote all three of them.

 

[Dan_473]

And the dating of 50-120 AD is verbal, but according to the actual papyrus: Late 4th Century:

Of course we can disagree about the dating of the Didache.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
The Wikipedia article gives several references that date it much earlier.

However, it is in the Ancient Greek.

The longer ending of Mark is in some Greek texts, but not in others.
This is why I recommended we agree on a particular Greek text.
If you don't wish to use the SBLGNT, we can use something else.

 

[Dan_473]

OK, but that removes proof that Mark, written in 60 AD, and Matthew copied from it.

I'm not sure if I'm following what you're saying here.

Are you saying that the longer ending of Mark must have been part of the original book because Matthew copies from it?

 

[Dan_473]

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.

Yes, a lot of the material and Matthew is based on Mark.

A lot of it is not found in mark, however.
For example, Matthew opens with a lengthy genealogy that is not found in mark.

 

[biker]

Yes, a lot of the material and Matthew is based on Mark.

A lot of it is not found in mark, however.
For example, Matthew opens with a lengthy genealogy that is not found in mark.

Mark is also said to be the viewpoint of Peter. So maybe all 3 are Peter's viewpoint!

 

[biker]

I'm not sure if I'm following what you're saying here.

Are you saying that the longer ending of Mark must have been part of the original book because Matthew copies from it?

I have never found the shorter version of Mark in older and ancient materials. So it makes wonder.

 

[biker]

Of course we can disagree about the dating of the Didache.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
The Wikipedia article gives several references that date it much earlier.


The longer ending of Mark is in some Greek texts, but not in others.
This is why I recommended we agree on a particular Greek text.
If you don't wish to use the SBLGNT, we can use something else.

It's cool, but it does hurt my viewpoint towards yours lol

 

[Dan_473]

Mark is also said to be the viewpoint of Peter. So maybe all 3 are Peter's viewpoint!

It's possible!

It's also possible that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke use a lot of material from Mark and also add a lot of other material, either from a saying source or from their own experience or research.

 

[Dan_473]

I have never found the shorter version of Mark in older and ancient materials. So it makes wonder.

Like most issues of textual criticism, it looks fairly complicated to me!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

"The earliest extant complete manuscripts of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two 4th-century manuscripts, do not contain the last twelve verses, 16:9–20, nor the unversed shorter ending."