Can you Spot the Trinity?

[Dan_473]

Scholars have been changing their minds in thinking the Gospels were written in Aramaic/Hebrew and then later translated into Greek.

Which scholars?

 

[Dan_473]

John had 2 famous Disciples, Iggy and Polycarp

Do you have a reference for this?

I had heard that Ignatius was a disciple of polycarp, and polycarp was a disciple of John the apostle.

But it was a long time ago, maybe I'm misremembering.

 

[biker]

Do you have a reference for this?

I had heard that Ignatius was a disciple of polycarp, and polycarp was a disciple of John the apostle.

But it was a long time ago, maybe I'm misremembering.

• Both Ignatius and Polycarp were the disciples of John. In fact there is this great legend in church history that as Ignatius was John’s disciple, and Polycarp was John’s disciple, then Polycarp was also Ignatius’ disciple. Polycarp would go on to disciple Irenaeus.

Two Disciples of John: Polycarp | 5 Minutes in Church History
www.5minutesinchurchhistory.com/two-disciples-of-john-polycarp/

 

[biker]

Which scholars?

There are indeed. But as I was looking them up I discovered this. Ironically, no one has challenged these findings so it must be true!


THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN HEBREW | Research ...
researchsupportsthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/07/...
Jul 03, 2013 · THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN HEBREW and NOT Greek or Aramaic .....Are there any proofs that the original language of the New Testament was Hebrew, and not Greek or Aramaic?" The answer is "Yes!

 

[biker]

It is believed however that Eshu and His Disciples spoke Aramaic. I believe this, but since Aramaic is literally short hand Hebrew, if a scholar wants to claim it is Hebrew over Aramaic I am cool with that lol

I just knew since Hebrew/Aramaic words were not translated into Greek, in the Greek translated articles themselves, it revealed the Greek was a translation and not the original. And Scholars have confirmed this. But this idea about the entire New Testament being originally done in Hebrew is the first I knew of. That fascinates me!

 

[biker]

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?

 

[Dan_473]

• Both Ignatius and Polycarp were the disciples of John. In fact there is this great legend in church history that as Ignatius was John’s disciple, and Polycarp was John’s disciple, then Polycarp was also Ignatius’ disciple. Polycarp would go on to disciple Irenaeus.

Two Disciples of John: Polycarp | 5 Minutes in Church History
www.5minutesinchurchhistory.com/two-disciples-of-john-polycarp/

Thanks!

 

[biker]

Thanks!

You are welcome, Brother!

 

[biker]

I love how we see from John the Apostle, we can trace to IGGY and POLYCARP and then to IRENAEUS. This way we can see the lineage and follow the trail to where this viewpoint of God comes from:

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.

 

[Dan_473]

Ironically, no one has challenged these findings so it must be true!

I disagree that that's a necessary conclusion.

 

[Dan_473]

You are welcome, Brother!

So, as a follow-up, do you follow all the teachings of Ignatius and polycarp?

 

[biker]

It's fascinating to see the very hand of God involved here. All Apostles were butchered by Nero, via Titus around 67 to 70 AD. But God ensured a remnant, John, to teach his own Disciples and keep the lineage going.

 

[Finepearl]

Some interesting facts I think worthy of note:

Quote from New Catholic Encyclopedia: The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the fourth Century. Among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective’ Unquote.

The ante-Nicene Fathers we’re acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. In summing up the historical evidence Alyan Lamson says in ‘The Church of the First Three Centuries: Quote: The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr; and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is; to all Christian writers for
three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” Unquote.

 

[CS1]

I'm always concerned when i see these " trinity threads'. We must approach the Godhead reverently and humbly. The Divine Nature of the One true God is not to be played with by limited human understanding when trying to say how the Unlimited God is.

The concept of the "Trinity " in very much supported by the word of God, that even so, the word or concept is still lacking the full ability of comprehension of ALL that GOD IS. TO THINK WE CAN KNOW ALL about God is impossible in our limited state.

 

[biker]

So, as a follow-up, do you follow all the teachings of Ignatius and polycarp?

Since it seems their views follow Johns, who follows Christ Himself, I do pay attention. Why though, is another answer. Which being, in case of lack of translation. We read the Gospel and we assume. But clearly John explained to his own disciples in plain vernacular. And it's this plain vernacular that I put up in comparison to the Gospels and can see a picture I had never seen before. So, the way God works, He made sure an idiot like myself would have someone break it down so I could understand it

 

[biker]

I disagree that that's a necessary conclusion.

I definitely agree.

But do you buy the fact, that when the Greek was translating the "original manuscripts" and came to words the Greek had no relative meaning and words in comparison to, they just left the original language as is?

It's interesting to take an all Greek text, the characters (letters and symbols) are unique to Greek alone, and suddenly see another language involved. And when you do your own study, you can discover why this Language is in the entire Greek text because the Greek did not know the meaning and could not replace it with Greek.

That is an automatic red light that Greek was not the original language. And this is why scholars are changing their views.

 

[biker]

Example:


Ο Γιαχβέ είναι ο ܗܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ Θεός ο Πατέρας

^
Greek and suddenly Aramaic followed by Greek.
^
IMO, that tells me the Greek is a translation of the Aramaic (being the original version).


And you can factually see this in some Ancient Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament.

 

[Dan_473]

Since it seems their views follow Johns, who follows Christ Himself, I do pay attention. Why though, is another answer. Which being, in case of lack of translation. We read the Gospel and we assume. But clearly John explained to his own disciples in plain vernacular. And it's this plain vernacular that I put up in comparison to the Gospels and can see a picture I had never seen before. So, the way God works, He made sure an idiot like myself would have someone break it down so I could understand it

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.

 

[Dan_473]

But do you buy the fact, that when the Greek was translating the "original manuscripts" and came to words the Greek had no relative meaning and words in comparison to, they just left the original language as is?

I don't yet except that it is a fact that the original was not in Greek. But it looks like you have an additional post after this so I'll check it out!

 

[Dan_473]

Example:


Ο Γιαχβέ είναι ο ܗܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ Θεός ο Πατέρας

^
Greek and suddenly Aramaic followed by Greek.
^
IMO, that tells me the Greek is a translation of the Aramaic (being the original version).


And you can factually see this in some Ancient Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament.

Which Greek manuscript are you referring to?

Is it available online?