The Trinity
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Rosenritter
New member
No Trinity in any passage that I have in my (King James) Bible. I am familiar with a passage that says we should baptize into the name and the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but nothing about a formula, everything about meaning.
Rosey, does Matthew 28:19 say "in the name of" or "in the names of"?
How many individuals are talked about in that verse? (hint: Granville-Sharp rule)
Rosenritter
New member
God is one individual (I think most Trinitarians agree on this.) I am not familiar with a Granville-Sharp rule, but the word "name" is singular, which would also imply one individual.
:surf:
I'm very sorry Apple7 for misrepresenting Your comment - I did not intend to so rudely ignore what You were saying. It was careless and inconsiderate of me and I would never want to be treated that way. I can not express my apologies and I hope that in time You will accept that - I made a mistake. I am so sorry.
Please forgive me, it was truly a complete accident and in no way intentionally done on purpose. I should have paid closer attention to exactly what You was saying. I will pay more attention to Your details in the future. I value, love and do respect Your responses very much so and again - I am sorry for that.
You were, of course right about that - The Bible does describe that the Fathers " hand " is involved in many, many aspects of His creation.
But all I was saying is simply that - never is the word " HAND " in Hebrew nor Greek involved with the relationship between the Father and the Son There is no place in the entire Bible where the literal word " HAND " has anything to do with the orientation, position,or placement that places the Sons role in a positional location of the Fathers " HAND " THRONE " POWER " or place in heaven.
The word and the concept is simply not there. in the original manuscripts.
I do not want to fill up the forum pages with quotes that people such as - Yourself " Apple7 " who are very experience and knowledgable about in the Bible, already clearly know and are fully aware of - so I will just post a handfull of them.
You " Apple7 " are so right about that. Thank You for taking the time to reply to me. I love reading Your responses. Just these few verses confirm exactly what You were saying. I should pay closer attention to people like You who probably have much sapience and masterful wisdom to show concerning Gods word.
1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand G5495 χείρ
- cheir - hand. khire of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,
John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand G5495 χείρ - cheir - hand..
Isaiah 49:14-16 But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.” “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my PALMS .H3709 - כַּף kaph / kaf Paw / Palm,
Ezra 8:21-23 Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a safe journey for ourselves, our children, and all our goods. For I was ashamed to ask the king for a band of soldiers and horsemen to protect us against the enemy on our way, since we had told the king, “The hand H3027 יָד Yâd / yawd hand of our God is for good on all who seek him, and the power of his wrath is against all who forsake him.”.....
Ezekiel 1:3 The word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the Chebar canal, and the hand H3027 יָד - yâd /yawd hand of the LORD was upon him there.
Isaiah 49:16 Behold, I have engraved you on my Palms H3709 כַּף -kaph / kaf; Paw/ Palm, your walls are continually before me.
I'm very sorry Apple7 for misrepresenting Your comment - I did not intend to so rudely ignore what You were saying. It was careless and inconsiderate of me and I would never want to be treated that way. I can not express my apologies and I hope that in time You will accept that - I made a mistake. I am so sorry.
Please forgive me, it was truly a complete accident and in no way intentionally done on purpose. I should have paid closer attention to exactly what You was saying. I will pay more attention to Your details in the future. I value, love and do respect Your responses very much so and again - I am sorry for that.
You were, of course right about that - The Bible does describe that the Fathers " hand " is involved in many, many aspects of His creation.
But all I was saying is simply that - never is the word " HAND " in Hebrew nor Greek involved with the relationship between the Father and the Son There is no place in the entire Bible where the literal word " HAND " has anything to do with the orientation, position,or placement that places the Sons role in a positional location of the Fathers " HAND " THRONE " POWER " or place in heaven.
The word and the concept is simply not there. in the original manuscripts.
I do not want to fill up the forum pages with quotes that people such as - Yourself " Apple7 " who are very experience and knowledgable about in the Bible, already clearly know and are fully aware of - so I will just post a handfull of them.
You " Apple7 " are so right about that. Thank You for taking the time to reply to me. I love reading Your responses. Just these few verses confirm exactly what You were saying. I should pay closer attention to people like You who probably have much sapience and masterful wisdom to show concerning Gods word.
1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand G5495 χείρ
- cheir - hand. khire of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,
John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand G5495 χείρ - cheir - hand..
Isaiah 49:14-16 But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.” “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my PALMS .H3709 - כַּף kaph / kaf Paw / Palm,
Ezra 8:21-23 Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a safe journey for ourselves, our children, and all our goods. For I was ashamed to ask the king for a band of soldiers and horsemen to protect us against the enemy on our way, since we had told the king, “The hand H3027 יָד Yâd / yawd hand of our God is for good on all who seek him, and the power of his wrath is against all who forsake him.”.....
Ezekiel 1:3 The word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the Chebar canal, and the hand H3027 יָד - yâd /yawd hand of the LORD was upon him there.
Isaiah 49:16 Behold, I have engraved you on my Palms H3709 כַּף -kaph / kaf; Paw/ Palm, your walls are continually before me.
Right Divider
Body part
And yet that verse applies the one name to three individuals.
P.S. The word 'name' there refers to authority.
Apple7
New member
The KJV is an English TRINITARIAN rendering to begin with...next excuse...
Apple7
New member
Rosenritter
New member
I think he's keen on the specific word "hand" in the metaphorical phrase "right hand" and as such Psalm 110 uses the Hebrew word for "right" rather than being a specific hand with a thumb and four fingers.
Psa 110:1 KJV
(1) <A Psalm of David.> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
| H3225 ימין yâmîyn yaw-meen' From H3231; the right hand or side (leg, eye) of a person or other object (as the stronger and more dexterous); locally, the south: - + left-handed, right (hand, side), south. |
Here would be an example that was using the specific word for hand.
Psa 22:16 KJV
(16) For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
| H3027 יד yâd yawd A primitive word; a hand (the open one (indicating power, means, direction, etc.), in distinction from H3709, the closed one); used (as noun, adverb, etc.) in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively, both proximate and remote: - (+ be) able, X about, + armholes, at, axletree, because of, beside, border, X bounty, + broad, [broken-] handed, X by, charge, coast, + consecrate, + creditor, custody, debt, dominion, X enough, + fellowship, force, X from, hand [-staves, -y work], X he, himself, X in, labour, + large, ledge, [left-] handed, means, X mine, ministry, near, X of, X order, ordinance, X our, parts, pain, power, X presumptuously, service, side, sore, state, stay, draw with strength, stroke, + swear, terror, X thee, X by them, X them-selves, X thine own, X thou, through, X throwing, + thumb, times, X to, X under, X us, X wait on, [way-] side, where, + wide, X with (him, me, you), work, + yield, X your-selves. |
I'm not trying to take a side here but if we don't show that we understand his meaning we're going to be drowned in the text of frustration.
God is one "BEING," or "OUSIA," yes.
The Granville-Sharp rule states: "When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person."
From: https://www.theopedia.com/granville-sharps-rule
Except in this case it's not.
I'll use one example comparison using two regular English sentences, and then I'll point out two other places in scripture where this is used, and then go back to Matthew 28:19 to prove my point.
Here's the two English sentences:
The father and husband went to the store.
The father and the husband went to the store.
In the first sentence, if we apply the GS rule, only one person is being referred to, one person who is both a father and a husband.
In the second sentence, if we apply the GS rule, two people are being referred to, one person who is a father, and another person who is a husband.
προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου
Titus 2:13 WH
looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, - Titus 2:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus2:13&version=NKJV
Using the GS rule here, "Our great God and Savior" (Greek: "the great God and Savior of us")is not two entities (and I use that term loosely), but is in fact one entity. Same with 2 Peter 1:1:
σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
2 Peter 1:1 WH
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: - 2 Peter 1:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter1:1&version=NKJV
"The God of us and Savior" is speaking of one entity.
Now, for Matthew 28:19:
πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος
Matthew 28:19 WH
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, - Matthew 28:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew28:19&version=NKJV
Instead of the text using just one "ho" (definite article "the"), it instead says:
"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Remember what I said above, how "the father and the husband" refers to not one, but two persons?
The same applies here, THE Father and THE Son and THE Holy Spirit is not one, but three Persons, all three of which share not three different names, as you said, but one name and authority.
Are you Arian?
If so, it would explain why you keep insisting that the concept of the Trinity is not Biblical but was instead "added."
Apple7
New member
You already provided the lexical definitions which prove 'Right Hand'.
The NT writers likewise knew this when they quoted the OT.
Rosenritter
New member
Me? I only provided two definitions, only one of which was "right" and it said it applied equally well to the eye or side. I'm not saying that the translation of "right hand" is incorrect in the slightest, but it's not necessarily because "hand" was spelled out. Or perhaps it might be somewhere, but it sure didn't look like it in the example you provided.
Apple7
New member
Apparently, you now reject and have already forgotten your very FIRST definition and what it said.
Let's review it once more for you...
Your cop-out of...'applies equally to the eye or side'....when in fact YOU ignored the first and primary reference to the RIGHT HAND!
Give it up...
Rosenritter
New member
Apple, I am fairly neutral as regards to whatever the original question was, but it is hard for me to believe you aren't simply trolling. There's a Hebrew word for hand, and there's a Hebrew word for right (meaning the opposite of left) that can imply the hand, the side, the view, and so forth. It seems fairly similar to English usage, where if I said "on the right and on the left" it could also be phrased "on the right hand and on the left hand" without a change in meaning, as it had nothing to do with actual hands.
Just because it is translated as "right hand" or "right side" or "right eye" doesn't mean that the word itself actually means hand or side or eye. I also have nothing at stake or riding on this, other than I do support the current translation as correct, unlike the person you're arguing against.
Apple7
New member
Let's expand upon your definitions, and inform you why 'Right Hand' was listed first in the definition that you posited...
As you can verify for yourself, the term in question, far and away, is rendered as 'Right Hand' in scripture....thus, this is the primary definition...
Thus...what now can you do...?
Rosenritter
New member
God is one "BEING," or "OUSIA," yes.
The Granville-Sharp rule states: "When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person."
From: https://www.theopedia.com/granville-sharps-rule
Except in this case it's not.
I'll use one example comparison using two regular English sentences, and then I'll point out two other places in scripture where this is used, and then go back to Matthew 28:19 to prove my point.
Spoiler
Remember what I said above, how "the father and the husband" refers to not one, but two persons?
The same applies here, THE Father and THE Son and THE Holy Spirit is not one, but three Persons, all three of which share not three different names, as you said, but one name and authority.
I noticed that you said God is multiple individuals. Whereas I said that this was one individual, you said "in this case, it's not." That, ironically, would put you outside of orthodox Trinitarianism, and my understanding as correct when compared with proper Trinity belief.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...of-the-trinity-within-the-reformed-tradition/
| 5. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1938) There is little in Berkhof’s explanation of the Trinity that should surprise anyone familiar with the Reformed tradition. He affirms that there is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence, and that in this Being there are three Divine Persons or individual subsistences (87). On this latter point, Berkhof helpfully reminds us that there are not three individuals in the Godhead, alongside of and separate from each other, but rather “personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence” |
So if you were correctly applying the Granville-Sharp rule, you also disproved the Trinity doctrine as understood by the aforementioned Reformed Theologians.
I suppose it is also possible that in your zeal you may have misspoke in saying God was three individuals (whereas you equated individual and person as synonymous) but if the Trinity theory and wording is that delicate and that misunderstood even by its official adherents, that's reason enough for me to say that I won't consider myself Trinitarian. If something is true the Bible will show it on its own without outside help.
Rosenritter
New member
What can I do? I wasn't trying to argue with you in the first place, and I already support "right hand" as the correct translation. But since you don't seem to understand English, and I'm not able to communicate well in any other language you understand, I can block you to cut down on the annoyance factor so you don't distract me from the other posters here.
Apple7
New member
Here is more evidence for 'Right Hand' as the most correct rendering...
Psalm 110.1 is quoted numerous times in the NT:
• Mat 22.41 – 46; 26.64
• Mark 12.35 – 37; 14.62
• Luke 20.41 – 44; 22.69 - 70
• Acts 2.32 – 36
• 1 Cor 15.25
• Eph 1.20
• Col 3.1
• Heb 1.3, 13; 8.1; 10.12 – 13; 12.2
The Greek term used in the NT...
Strong's Concordance
dexios: the right hand or side
Original Word: δεξιός, ά, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: dexios
Phonetic Spelling: (dex-ee-os')
Short Definition: on the right hand, right hand, right
Definition: on the right hand, right hand, right.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
perhaps a prim. word
Definition
the right hand or side
NASB Translation
right (22), right hand (31), right-hand (1).
Again...simply more evidence for 'Right Hand' as being the most correct rendering...