No. All of the New Testament was was written in upper-case Greek! What is more, there was no spaces between words, and no punctuation.
Paidion, Abraham was Jesus’ spiritual father as well.
These two verses are clearly referring to Abraham as a spiritual father and those who belong to Christ as Abraham’s spiritual descendants.
John 8:39 ‘They answered and said to Him, ‘Abraham is our father.’ Jesus said to them, ’ If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.’
Here again is a reference to Abraham as a spiritual father. Jesus was doing the works of the father Abraham as well as the works of God.
Who ever said it was?
Thanks @Hermano for your response. Those quotes are the first time I’ve heard of them - so I’ve been taking a look through them for a while. Hence the late response.
I did take a look at the article out of interest but Im just as stuck on the topic as before. I think that there is much more to extra-biblical writings that meets the eye. The history of various other religions incorporating a tripartite view of God is extensive and wrought throughout that time period. I think it is very possible that bias could have played a roll in there somewhere. But I really have to look at those resources further - I remain inconclusive on the topic.
Another take on the issue:
So, as you are probably aware, baptism is imagery used to show a type of birth, rebirth, resurrection. As the sinner repents and dies to oneself, one is reborn. He is symbolically buried under water where he cannot breathe (symbolizing being dead), and then “resurrects” up out of the water as a new person in Christ.
Only Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected. The Holy Spirit never died, was never buried, and never resurrected. The big question is whether or not God the Father can die, get buried, and resurrect.
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
1 Like
Pilgrim, I don’t understand why you are so intent with what seems to be your idea that I have some sort of hidden agenda. I told you that what I orginally said was purely informational. I stand by that.
Just to review, for those who might wonder what this is all about:
Mik had written:
“I’d like to add that according to early manuscripts of the NT, the reading of Matt. 28:19 does not include all three persons. That was a later addition to confirm their own bias.”
In response I wrote:
“Indeed of the 59 extant manuscripts of the NT or part of the NT, copied prior to A.D. 300 , not one even contains Matthew 28:19.”
When I first read Mik’s comment, I knew that I had encountered no manuscript that did not “include all three persons” as Mik had said. I wondered where he got his information, and thus made my comment.
How could there be an early manuscript which “did not include all three persons” if none of them prior to A.D. 300 included the verse itself?
I see now why you might think I was supporting Mik’s comment by saying that none of the extant manuscripts dated prior to A.D. 300 contained the verse (which is true). Nevertheless, I did not mean to imply that Jesus never uttered these words. As I pointed out later, I was aware of the various early Christian writers who affirmed that Christian practice was to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, some of whom also affirmed that Jesus had said these words.
This is nonsense and whether you understand my intent is entirely irrelevant to the topic.
I have never suggested or implied that you have a hidden agenda. You have made your agenda quite plain. You do not believe in the Trinity and you try to undermine the veracity of any text that might be interpreted as supportive of the Trinity.
Mik had written:
“I’d like to add that according to early manuscripts of the NT, the reading of Matt. 28:19 does not include all three persons. That was a later addition to confirm their own bias.” [/quote]
And Mik was honourable in writing that statement because he has just confirmed that was the extent of his knowledge when he wrote that statement and upon being informed that the text was in existence earlier than he thought, he has since graciously stated:
He could have been thanking YOU if you had enlightened him but you chose to do the opposite.
You, however, stated that you were AWARE of early references to Matt 28:19 and yet you supported Miks earlier statement with an “Indeed”. Why did you “Indeed” something you KNEW to be false?
Your partial information was misleading.
You have now repeatedly avoided answering a simple and straightforward question which I will repeat:
How did you think that the partial information you gave would be of assistance to the debate? ie what were we supposed to infer from your partial truth?
There is no answer other than the one I have given and it saddens me to think that even when (and if) I reach your grand age, I may still be controlled by my own ego rather than the quest for truth and the goal of helping others in their own quest for truth.
1 Like
Wishing you the best in “controlling your ego” in your old age.
Meanwhile, you might try controlling your judgments of people on such a flimsy basis as you have done in this case.
[quote=“pilgrim, post:117, topic:13676”
You have made your agenda quite plain. You do not believe in the Trinity and you try to undermine the veracity of any text that might be interpreted as supportive of the Trinity
[/quote]
pilgrim, I think you may be making a mountain out of a mole hill. It doesn’t matter if they were baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit prior to the addition of Matt. 28:19. This still does not support a Trinity of Gods.
Ivernessian, No. I’m not pulling anyone’s legs. It is very reasonable to say that the Father they are referring to in Matt.28:19 is Abraham, the Father of Israel.
Then what does this passage imply, according to the LLC worldview?
HF, the Jews praised and exalted Abraham as the Father of Israel and the Father of their faith; that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was their God a well. Evidently, this was not true because when Jesus came teaching the words of Abraham which came from the God he believed in, they killed Him. In doing so, they basically killed Abraham.
Jesus=Abraham. This was not reincarnation. Abraham and Jesus were two different people, but they were one in the same Spirit of God(Holy Spirit).
As I mentioned before, there is a big difference between being a person of God and God being three persons.