Trinity Facts

[CherubRam]

I'm a person who believes the credentialed scholars KNOW what they are doing when translating. What you've simply done is select one of the connotations that suits your POV, rather than what suits the context of the verse.
B-D-B shows the following;

prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain

1. chieftain, leader
2. vassal, noble, official (under king)
3. captain, general, commander (military)
4. chief, head, overseer (of other official classes)
5. heads, princes (of religious office)
6. elders (of representative leaders of people)
7. merchant-princes (of rank and dignity)
8. patron-angel
9. Ruler of rulers (of God)
10. warden

As the following link shows, the five most reliable and modern English translations don't agree with your summation.
Is 9:6 NASB;HCSB;NIV;NET;NRSV - For a child will be born to us, a son - Bible Gateway

I think the more salient point is that Jesus was also Mighty God AND Everlasting Father so your equivocation of Prince is not really of any value.
Besides, in the context of this verse nobody is CALLED ministering in peace.

Scholars have been known to be wrong, and they have been known to lie.

 

[Der Alte]

A "PARAPHRASE" is not a true translation.

Irrelevant. The Targum Isaiah shows how the ancient Jews understood Isaiah 9:6 and they didn't have any presumed "pagan Christian" influence.

 

[Der Alte]

Scholars have been known to be wrong, and they have been known to lie.

Can you PROVE that the scholars quoted above are wrong or were lying? If not then your comment is a meaningless, irrelevant generality. I notice you link to a lot of websites that just happen to support your POV. Do you think that they are wrong or lying?

 

[CherubRam]

Oh I read but this post as with others you ignore virtually evything I post and complain that I don't read your posts. I usually don't follow links unless something is quoted from it. I note that at this link is the usual copy/paste from some atheists-я-us.com clone with the same ol' lame ol' halftruths, out-of-context, misrepresented stuff and even out and out prevarications. For example the Matt 28:19 Eusebius fakery.

Eusebius uses a form of Mt 28:19, 29 times and cites it in three different forms:

Form 1: " Go ye and make disciples of all nations " (7 times)
Form 2: "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name" (17 times)
Form 3: The traditional Triadic form (5 times) in The Theophania, The Theology of the Church, Contra Marcellum 2x, and Letter to Caesarea.

In the Theopania, Eusebius uses all three forms, in the Theology of the church Eusebius uses both forms 1 and 3, the traditional Triadic form.

In his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Matthew.pdf​

Eusebius' Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine was written 338 AD, 13 years after the Council of Nicaea.

If part of his quotes is with a trinity formula and the other part is not, then what does that tell you? And remember, the other bible chapters also say; "baptize in my name." Just as I thought, you are not reading my links.

 

[CherubRam]

Can you PROVE that the scholars quoted above are wrong or were lying? If not then your comment is a meaningless, irrelevant generality. I notice you link to a lot of websites that just happen to support your POV. Do you think that they are wrong or lying?

POV is for porn video. What are you talking about?

 

[stan1953]

POV is for porn video. What are you talking about?

Ooopsies...someone just let the proverbial cat out of the bag!

Point Of View cherub.

 

[stan1953]

Scholars have been known to be wrong, and they have been known to lie.

Apparently ONLY when they don't support your POV.

We're talking about the vast majority here my friend.

 

[stan1953]

Christ name is not Yahuah: Now or ever.

No, Christ's name was Messiah. Yahuah or Yeshua is Jesus.

 

[Der Alte]

If part of his quotes is with a trinity formula and the other part is not, then what does that tell you? And remember, the other bible chapters also say; "baptize in my name." Just as I thought, you are not reading my links.

I told you I don't usually follow links unless something was quoted from the link. Post your discussions here and I will read them. I'm not having a discussion with your random links. Were one to actually read Eusebius instead of quoting bits and pieces from random websites one would know that Eusebius often quoted portions of verses. What does it tell me? It tells me that Eusebius cannot be used to prove that Matt 28:19 with the Triadic formula is not authentic. Please show me anywhere Jesus said "baptize in my name?"

 

[CherubRam]

I told you I don't usually follow links unless something was quoted from the link. Post your discussions here and I will read them. I'm not having a discussion with your random links. Were one to actually read Eusebius instead of quoting bits and pieces from random websites one would know that Eusebius often quoted portions of verses. What does it tell me? It tells me that Eusebius cannot be used to prove that Matt 28:19 with the Triadic formula is not authentic. Please show me anywhere Jesus said "baptize in my name?"

I think you just like to waste my time.

Baptized in the name

Matthew 28:19
“Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

Luke 24:47
and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:16
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 19:5
On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Romans 6:3
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

1 Corinthians 1
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.


People were not baptized using the trinity formula, not until after the Catholic Church declared the Holy Spirit a third person.

 

[CherubRam]

1 Tim. 2:5

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

 

[Albion]

I told you I don't usually follow links unless something was quoted from the link. Post your discussions here and I will read them. I'm not having a discussion with your random links.

Thank you for saying it!

If a member can't defend his ideas personally, he can't. And those of us who are able to do so, shouldn't feel any obligation to be debating against a link or video or cut and paste selection from some church publication.

In fact, I'd like this--here and now--to be the start of an understanding that such is simply not to be expected by anyone and that it won't happen.

 

[2ducklow]

It's always only the other guys that post massive cut and pastes with no comments. or post links with no comments. Amazing. it's only people with whom we disagree doctrinally that ever do that kind of stuff. Just like the only rude people in here are the ones with whom we disagree with doctrinally, Everybody knows that.

 

[Albion]

It's always only the other guys that post massive cut and pastes with no comments. or post links with no comments. Amazing.

Well, I know for a fact that I do not do that. Is it all right for me to suggest that we all start explaining what we think rather than resorting to slapping these outside sources, usually without much comment from "us?"

Well, it's only people with whom we disagree doctrinally that ever do that kind of stuff. Just like the only rude people in here are the ones with whom we disagree with doctrinally, Everybody knows that.

That kind of retort is fun, isn't it? But I really wish everyone would just consider the matter without instantly looking for a way to ridicule it.

 

[2ducklow]

Well, I know for a fact that I do not do that. Is it all right for me to suggest that we all start explaining what we think rather than resorting to slapping these outside sources, usually without much comment from "us?"

Yea It's a good thing, nobodies going to always do it though.

That kind of retort is fun, isn't it? But I really wish everyone would just consider the matter without instantly looking for a way to ridicule it.

My experience in here is that everyone does it especially when they are trying to defend something that isn't so easily defended. I think too it's a way for people to avoid conflict, especially with rude and hostile people. People seldom deal with what one says, or tries to understand what the other person is saying, so sometimes it's like what's the point of going into detailed explanation? Because even if you do corner your opponent, that person will just ignore it. the general rule in here is start off with some really good red herring, then blast away at the individual and paint him or her as some moron .
that method proves anybodies doctrine. And is so much more persuasive, and convincing than just debating the topic.

 

[Albion]

My experience in here is that everyone does it especially when they are trying to defend something that isn't so easily defended. I think too it's a way for people to avoid conflict, especially with rude and hostile people.

All right. Let's agree that it's common. It clearly is not the case the "everyone does it."

The point is that we accommodate it, and I thought it was a good idea when Der Alter raised the point about not doing that (accommodating) anymore. Or at least, that's what I thought after reading his post.

If a person states his case, he deserves a thoughtful reply. If he just gives us a link or video with the "that's it. see for yourself how right I am" attitude, it doesn't deserve anything.

 

[2ducklow]

All right. Let's agree that it's common. It clearly is not the case the "everyone does it."

The point is that we accommodate it, and I thought it was a good idea when Der Alter raised the point about not doing that (accommodating) anymore. Or at least, that's what I thought after reading his post.

If a person states his case, he deserves a thoughtful reply. If he just gives us a link or video with the "that's it. see for yourself how right I am" attitude, it doesn't deserve anything.

I think most anyone who debates very much will at least once in a while do it. personally I don't think I've ever just posted a link as a response, but I've done similar things.

Well see I had a different take on that situation. The debator felt his thoughts weren't being understood and no amount of explanation changed that, so he decided to bow out with a link so that he could say a lot without saying anything. and since he felt he wasn't being understood, there's no need to explain it over and over and over. so just post a link and bow out. That was my perception. And I've done that sort of thing myself. and I don't think that is a bad idea. If one doesn't feel he is being understood no matter how hard he tries, then he should just bow out of the discussion, that's one way to do it. also it's a way of countering another persons massive cut and paste with no comments.

here's another general rule. If much of what one posts is getting ignored or is misunderstood, then one should resort to very short posts with very limited information in order to force his opponent to deal with the topic. It never works but one can only try.

 

[Albion]

Well see I had a different take on that situation. The debator felt his thoughts weren't being understood and no amount of explanation changed that, so he decided to bow out with a link so that he could say a lot without saying anything. and since he felt he wasn't being understood, there's no need to explain it over and over and over. so just post a link and bow out. That was my perception. And I've done that sort of thing myself. and I don't think that is a bad idea.

And perhaps you are right about this particular incident. It made me think of the general practice, which is widespread as you yourself note here. It may be time to call a halt to it. I refer to the felt need to reply, even if the other person took the easy way out, perhaps for being inarticulate himself, by posting a link or video, etc.

Either discuss, or we don't have any obligation to reply...just because something was put "on paper" and directed to us.

 

[ChetSinger]

Christ name is not Yahuah: Now or ever.

OK, let's back up a bit. Can we agree that one of the titles given to Jesus in the NT is "the Word of God"?

 

[Hoshiyya]

Trinitarianism only makes sense to Trinitarians, there's no point arguing with them. My advice to you (CherubRam) is to not waste your time on arguments and debates that don't actually lead to anything.

I've had hundreds of debates and arguments "just for the sake of it" and it may have contributed to my own development at times but it certainly did not affect or change the world or people around me very much at all.

~~

The Jewish attitude (which is non-missionary and concerned with reality instead of theory) ultimately makes much more sense than the theory-obsessed, conversion-obsessed, doctrine-obsessed, practice-neglecting, Torah-rejecting Christian atttitude. In Christianity you have debates about purely invisible and theoretical things (like the Trinity, or how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle) exactly because they don't have Law, they don't have Torah.