Its extremely tragic really, people spend their lives studying the bible/delving into the greek and concordances and for what? To end up believing a person will be condemned if they stand on the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth. Of course, they will rationalise that is not the case, their head theology must be defended at any cost, but it remains the truth, however much they are denial of it
The Trinity.
- Thread starter Aussie52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Holy Spirit would NEVER lead anyone to believe a person could be condemned for standing on the words of Christ when he walked this earth, that is not possible. In trinitarian terms that would be God contradicting God and the formula collapses. However, the natural academic mind that revels in theological debate is another matter. That mind will reason and defend anything it chooses to, so it may carry on with the only thing that matters to the individual
Then you get verses posted such as John10:30 and John20:28 in order to overturn the plain words of Christ regarding the Father being the only TRUE God, and these verses along with others are rationalised to overturn the biblical requirement for salvation as to who Christ must be believed to be to be saved. Oh well. Standard examples of internet debating websites
Blah blah blah. I gave you the extremely plain words of Thomas and you reject them out of hand because you think his declaration of him saying, "My Lord and my God" some how overturn the plain words of Jesus saying the Father is the only true God. Why does it escape your notice that to Thomas Jesus is the true God as well? And I don't mean there are two or three true gods.
The one true God chose to manifest Himself as three distinct persons. not three gods, persons. Then you "brag" about how you showed those "supposedly" clueless trinitarians. From all that you have said, (and I'm assuming your an old man age wise) based on your name Michael1968. Is that when you claimed to have been saved? If so, I was in Vietnam in January of 1968 when the Tet offensive started and have been a Trinitarian Christian for 62 years. I'm blessed the Lord brought me home safe and sound in order to tell you this day that it's not too late to change. Why, because your still breathing. Abandon this pride and stubbornness of yours before it's too late.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
The one true God chose to manifest Himself as three distinct persons. not three gods, persons. Then you "brag" about how you showed those "supposedly" clueless trinitarians. From all that you have said, (and I'm assuming your an old man age wise) based on your name Michael1968. Is that when you claimed to have been saved? If so, I was in Vietnam in January of 1968 when the Tet offensive started and have been a Trinitarian Christian for 62 years. I'm blessed the Lord brought me home safe and sound in order to tell you this day that it's not too late to change. Why, because your still breathing. Abandon this pride and stubbornness of yours before it's too late.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
-
1
-
1
- Show all
At salvation though.. you'd be believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. So the person hearing may not know the mechanics of the Trinity. They would know Jesus is the Son of God and fully God..but knowing the Trinity fully takes time.
Getting saved is not a long process..
Its instant. The moment some one believes on Jesus as God and Saviour. Other doctrines take time to learn. I believe someone could not know the Trinity but still be saved. Altho I guess believing Jesus is God is accepting the Trinity mostly.
Getting saved is not a long process..
Its instant. The moment some one believes on Jesus as God and Saviour. Other doctrines take time to learn. I believe someone could not know the Trinity but still be saved. Altho I guess believing Jesus is God is accepting the Trinity mostly.
I have to be upfront: I am glad(!) you decided to post your remarks on this forum, because this now allows me time to gather my thoughts and put them in written format. I have been festering on these thoughts for a very long time, perhaps even years and really haven’t taken time to express it in fuller detail.
I realize that as you read this, there is going to be quite a bit of “self-resistance” on your behalf. But I want you to keep an open mind.
Before I begin, I want to preface what I’m about to say by captivating your mind with a little bit of imagery. Imagine it is October 25, 1415 in a little French town known as, Azincourt (English: Agincourt). In prior years, the French and English had been entangled in a long dispute known as, the “Hundred Years’ War.” But in the more recent years leading up to this specific date, there was actually quite a bit of peace between the two nations. In one hand, England had prospered with great peace, while France had found itself torn asunder by civil war.
But here we both are on this day of October 25, 1415. Neither one of us are enlisted among the ranks of the French or English, but instead are previewing the events as they unfold from afar (or perhaps even through a crystal ball). And as we press our gaze closer inwardly, it becomes quite a bit more obvious to us what is about to transpire: A battle, of course!
On one side of the field: the English. On another side: the French. Why are the English here? Did they cross the sea all for a simple stroll in the park?
Seeking our answers, we turn our gaze back onto the events as they are about to transpire, and a bit of self-reflection begins to sink in: Your heart is a whole lot like France. Like France, your heart has been sundered by and entrenched in “civil war.” And the Word of God is like this English army, which by this time is at your doorstep. And now (like Henry, king of England) the King of Creation is working to reassert His claims to the crown, and dominance over all creation.
But who will strike first? The English? And where will they strike? The map doesn’t tell us that part! Will they send one wave at a time? Perhaps even multiple (and from all directions), working simultaneously together! And are there trebuchets involved? Don’t forget the trebuchets! After all, what is a battle without a few projectiles being hurled through the sky? Watch out now!
I realize that as you read this, there is going to be quite a bit of “self-resistance” on your behalf. But I want you to keep an open mind.
Before I begin, I want to preface what I’m about to say by captivating your mind with a little bit of imagery. Imagine it is October 25, 1415 in a little French town known as, Azincourt (English: Agincourt). In prior years, the French and English had been entangled in a long dispute known as, the “Hundred Years’ War.” But in the more recent years leading up to this specific date, there was actually quite a bit of peace between the two nations. In one hand, England had prospered with great peace, while France had found itself torn asunder by civil war.
But here we both are on this day of October 25, 1415. Neither one of us are enlisted among the ranks of the French or English, but instead are previewing the events as they unfold from afar (or perhaps even through a crystal ball). And as we press our gaze closer inwardly, it becomes quite a bit more obvious to us what is about to transpire: A battle, of course!
On one side of the field: the English. On another side: the French. Why are the English here? Did they cross the sea all for a simple stroll in the park?
Seeking our answers, we turn our gaze back onto the events as they are about to transpire, and a bit of self-reflection begins to sink in: Your heart is a whole lot like France. Like France, your heart has been sundered by and entrenched in “civil war.” And the Word of God is like this English army, which by this time is at your doorstep. And now (like Henry, king of England) the King of Creation is working to reassert His claims to the crown, and dominance over all creation.
But who will strike first? The English? And where will they strike? The map doesn’t tell us that part! Will they send one wave at a time? Perhaps even multiple (and from all directions), working simultaneously together! And are there trebuchets involved? Don’t forget the trebuchets! After all, what is a battle without a few projectiles being hurled through the sky? Watch out now!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Prong 1: πρὸς τὸν θεόν (John 1:1b)
When Jn. 1:1 speaks of the Word existing “with” God, the term used here for “with” is the Greek word πρὸς. When followed by a noun in the accusative case, πρὸς speaks of face-to-face communion, interaction. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g., 1:29, 42, 47).
There are (14) instances in the Gospel of John alone, where some slight variation of the phrase πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1b) is used. The number swells to (17) if we also include John’s Epistles. And if the Apocalypse is included, it swells to a whopping (19) occurrences. Included in these tallies are,
This language (with some slight variation), is elsewhere used throughout the Testaments — including Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Philippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communication with one another.
In each instance (aside from the few that you would dispute, i.e., Jn. 1:1, 1:2, and likely 1 Jn. 1:2) there is real personal and numerical distinction. This is standard Johannine rhetoric when speaking of Christ’s decent/ascent to the heavenly places. Take Jn. 13:1-12 (Lexham) as an example,
Within the span of just a few short sentences, John uses such language (twice) in the immediate context to speak of Christ’s departing “to” God (and seven more times as the narrative progresses). But the reason for citing this example in Jn. 13 is not only to show the frequency in which John uses the language, but also the surrounding context in which it is used. There are conceptual similarities in Jn. 13 to the earlier Pauline work to the Philippians.
In Jn. 13, (and pay attention to the details of this) “knowing (εἰδὼς) He had come forth from God and was going away to God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν),” Christ rises from the table and lays aside His “outer garments,” clothing Himself with a towel (v. 4). In Phil. 2, Christ divests Himself of His glorious garments (vv. 6-7) by clothing Himself with human nature (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9).
In Phil. 2, Christ takes the form of a slave, yet, in Jn. 13, He performs a menial task often assigned to slaves (washing the feet of others).
In Jn. 13, upon completion of this task, Christ once again takes up His (former) outer garments. In Phil. 2, after His work on earth is finished, He returns to the visible glory with the Father that was His before time.
In Phil. 2, Christ is exalted by the Father and sits down (once more) on His heavenly throne, yet, in Jn. 13, Christ resumes His place at the table, from which He had temporarily departed.
The story in Jn. 13 is an example of humble service. In Phil. 2, Paul uses the incarnation and humiliation of Christ as an example of humble service (Phil. 2:1-5).
With the imagery and conceptual ties to Phil. 2 in the backdrop, John seizes upon language from his prologue (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) and weaves it back into the narrative to demonstrate that Christ will once more “resume His place at the table,” from which He had once departed (Jn. 1:1). He was “with” God in the beginning (Jn. 1:1, Phil. 2:6), and was now going back to God (Jn. 13:3-4, Phil. 2:9-11), seated at the right hand of God. But even more striking are that the words recorded in Jn. 13:3-4 are not the “spoken words” of Christ (or of the narrator for that matter), but even as the narrator explains, are the “inner-thinkings” (εἰδὼς) of Christ, which seems to form yet another connection to Phil. 2:6 in that both texts place Christ’s thoughts and contemplations on “equality with God,” which again points us back to the prologue, Jn. 1:1. Fresh on Christ’s mind was: πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1, 13:3-4), which He then goes on to elaborate/reflect on (or, “speak His mind”) in the ensuing narrative (specifically, Chapters 14 through 17):
When Jn. 1:1 speaks of the Word existing “with” God, the term used here for “with” is the Greek word πρὸς. When followed by a noun in the accusative case, πρὸς speaks of face-to-face communion, interaction. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g., 1:29, 42, 47).
There are (14) instances in the Gospel of John alone, where some slight variation of the phrase πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1b) is used. The number swells to (17) if we also include John’s Epistles. And if the Apocalypse is included, it swells to a whopping (19) occurrences. Included in these tallies are,
This language (with some slight variation), is elsewhere used throughout the Testaments — including Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Philippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communication with one another.
In each instance (aside from the few that you would dispute, i.e., Jn. 1:1, 1:2, and likely 1 Jn. 1:2) there is real personal and numerical distinction. This is standard Johannine rhetoric when speaking of Christ’s decent/ascent to the heavenly places. Take Jn. 13:1-12 (Lexham) as an example,
Within the span of just a few short sentences, John uses such language (twice) in the immediate context to speak of Christ’s departing “to” God (and seven more times as the narrative progresses). But the reason for citing this example in Jn. 13 is not only to show the frequency in which John uses the language, but also the surrounding context in which it is used. There are conceptual similarities in Jn. 13 to the earlier Pauline work to the Philippians.
In Jn. 13, (and pay attention to the details of this) “knowing (εἰδὼς) He had come forth from God and was going away to God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν),” Christ rises from the table and lays aside His “outer garments,” clothing Himself with a towel (v. 4). In Phil. 2, Christ divests Himself of His glorious garments (vv. 6-7) by clothing Himself with human nature (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9).
In Phil. 2, Christ takes the form of a slave, yet, in Jn. 13, He performs a menial task often assigned to slaves (washing the feet of others).
In Jn. 13, upon completion of this task, Christ once again takes up His (former) outer garments. In Phil. 2, after His work on earth is finished, He returns to the visible glory with the Father that was His before time.
In Phil. 2, Christ is exalted by the Father and sits down (once more) on His heavenly throne, yet, in Jn. 13, Christ resumes His place at the table, from which He had temporarily departed.
The story in Jn. 13 is an example of humble service. In Phil. 2, Paul uses the incarnation and humiliation of Christ as an example of humble service (Phil. 2:1-5).
With the imagery and conceptual ties to Phil. 2 in the backdrop, John seizes upon language from his prologue (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) and weaves it back into the narrative to demonstrate that Christ will once more “resume His place at the table,” from which He had once departed (Jn. 1:1). He was “with” God in the beginning (Jn. 1:1, Phil. 2:6), and was now going back to God (Jn. 13:3-4, Phil. 2:9-11), seated at the right hand of God. But even more striking are that the words recorded in Jn. 13:3-4 are not the “spoken words” of Christ (or of the narrator for that matter), but even as the narrator explains, are the “inner-thinkings” (εἰδὼς) of Christ, which seems to form yet another connection to Phil. 2:6 in that both texts place Christ’s thoughts and contemplations on “equality with God,” which again points us back to the prologue, Jn. 1:1. Fresh on Christ’s mind was: πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1, 13:3-4), which He then goes on to elaborate/reflect on (or, “speak His mind”) in the ensuing narrative (specifically, Chapters 14 through 17):
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Prong 2: Jn. 1:1c
In discussions on Christ’s personal pre-existence, Jn. 1:1c may get bypassed or overlooked. But for our purposes, the inspiration behind mentioning it is two-fold: It ties in nicely with where we left off with the former point regarding “equality with God,” while also supporting personal distinction from God (see “Prong 1”)
Had John wished to identify the λόγος as “God the Father,” or perhaps even as some attribute existing within God, then might I suggest that he would have used the articular θεὸς, in which then John 1:1c would coincide with John 1:1b. The way John has written John 1:1c makes for a type of distinction between the λόγος and τὸν θεὸν (John 1:1b) that does not exactly correlate with Socinian interpretations. John 1:1c does not identify the λόγος as τὸν θεὸν of 1:1b.
If you are unfamiliar with the issue, I will briefly summarize with the words of Henry Alford:
The point Alford is driving at here in his comparison of vv. 1 (θεὸς ἦν), and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word”) as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1:1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject. In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God — everything that makes God, God — the Word also possesses.
In discussions on Christ’s personal pre-existence, Jn. 1:1c may get bypassed or overlooked. But for our purposes, the inspiration behind mentioning it is two-fold: It ties in nicely with where we left off with the former point regarding “equality with God,” while also supporting personal distinction from God (see “Prong 1”)
Had John wished to identify the λόγος as “God the Father,” or perhaps even as some attribute existing within God, then might I suggest that he would have used the articular θεὸς, in which then John 1:1c would coincide with John 1:1b. The way John has written John 1:1c makes for a type of distinction between the λόγος and τὸν θεὸν (John 1:1b) that does not exactly correlate with Socinian interpretations. John 1:1c does not identify the λόγος as τὸν θεὸν of 1:1b.
If you are unfamiliar with the issue, I will briefly summarize with the words of Henry Alford:
The point Alford is driving at here in his comparison of vv. 1 (θεὸς ἦν), and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word”) as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1:1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject. In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God — everything that makes God, God — the Word also possesses.
-
1
- Show all
Prong 3: διὰ + genitive
That Jn. 1:1-3 communicates personal pre-existence, is demonstrated in more than just a couple ways. Similar to Jn. 1:1, the next verse (1:2) also uses language of intimacy (πρὸς τὸν θεόν), but this then is coupled by a διὰ + genitive construct (1:3). The significance of this is brought out by most commentators and grammarians,
Also see other instances (even in the very context) which also denote personal agency (cf. Jn. 1:7, 1:10, 3:17), and is frequently used in contexts which discuss Christ’s pre-existence and involvement in creation (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2).
That Jn. 1:1-3 communicates personal pre-existence, is demonstrated in more than just a couple ways. Similar to Jn. 1:1, the next verse (1:2) also uses language of intimacy (πρὸς τὸν θεόν), but this then is coupled by a διὰ + genitive construct (1:3). The significance of this is brought out by most commentators and grammarians,
Also see other instances (even in the very context) which also denote personal agency (cf. Jn. 1:7, 1:10, 3:17), and is frequently used in contexts which discuss Christ’s pre-existence and involvement in creation (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2).
-
1
- Show all
Prong 4: Jn. 1:23 (cf. Isaiah 40:3) and it’s connections to the other Gospel accounts
John makes reference to Isaiah 40:3 in Jn. 1:23. The significance of this may get passed over by the casual reader. But notice that
Mark (1:2-3) cites the same passage in his Gospel's opening,
Here, Mark cites from two sources. But I want to focus primarily on his first source: Malachi 3:1,
According to Malachi 3:1, it is the messenger that “will clear the way before Me.” The “Me” is clearly God; however, Mark makes a very subtle adjustment: Whereas Malachi 3:1 it mentions only “God” and “the messenger,” Mark introduces a third person into the text,
Mark adds the words πρὸ προσώπου σου (“before You”) after ἄγγελόν (“messenger”) in the first half of the passage, and alters (if we follow the LXX) the later half of the verse from καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου (“and he will clear the way before Me”) to ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου (“who will prepare Your way”). This goes to show that Mark is making a distinction between the speaker (God), and this third person which—according to Mark—God is speaking of. It is of interest that in the latter half of Malachi 3:1, God does go on to speak of a third person,
Here God speaks of someone other than Himself, who is numerically distinct from Himself, as ha adon, a term which is only ever used of YHWH. Aside from this one occurrence found in Malachi, the remainder of occurrences are found in Isaiah (1:24, 3:1, 10:16, 10:33, 19:4), the very OT book which Mark goes on to cite in v. 3. This is one of the thematic connections that bridge together Mark’s use of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.
The way Mark’s presents this, is that this is not simply a citation of the OT, but this is Mark telling us what the Father said to the Son prior to the sending of John. Before John the Baptist ever appears on the scene of history; before Jesus is ever spoken of as a figure in the narrative; before we even get to the narrative in and of itself, Mark cites Malachi 3:1 and gives it a prosopological cast, and conjoins it together with Isaiah 40:3 in the following verse (v. 3),
What's fascinating is that Mark is not the only one to use Malachi 3:1 in this way. Other authors also do so: Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:17; 7:27
John makes reference to Isaiah 40:3 in Jn. 1:23. The significance of this may get passed over by the casual reader. But notice that
Mark (1:2-3) cites the same passage in his Gospel's opening,
Here, Mark cites from two sources. But I want to focus primarily on his first source: Malachi 3:1,
According to Malachi 3:1, it is the messenger that “will clear the way before Me.” The “Me” is clearly God; however, Mark makes a very subtle adjustment: Whereas Malachi 3:1 it mentions only “God” and “the messenger,” Mark introduces a third person into the text,
Mark adds the words πρὸ προσώπου σου (“before You”) after ἄγγελόν (“messenger”) in the first half of the passage, and alters (if we follow the LXX) the later half of the verse from καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου (“and he will clear the way before Me”) to ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου (“who will prepare Your way”). This goes to show that Mark is making a distinction between the speaker (God), and this third person which—according to Mark—God is speaking of. It is of interest that in the latter half of Malachi 3:1, God does go on to speak of a third person,
Here God speaks of someone other than Himself, who is numerically distinct from Himself, as ha adon, a term which is only ever used of YHWH. Aside from this one occurrence found in Malachi, the remainder of occurrences are found in Isaiah (1:24, 3:1, 10:16, 10:33, 19:4), the very OT book which Mark goes on to cite in v. 3. This is one of the thematic connections that bridge together Mark’s use of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.
The way Mark’s presents this, is that this is not simply a citation of the OT, but this is Mark telling us what the Father said to the Son prior to the sending of John. Before John the Baptist ever appears on the scene of history; before Jesus is ever spoken of as a figure in the narrative; before we even get to the narrative in and of itself, Mark cites Malachi 3:1 and gives it a prosopological cast, and conjoins it together with Isaiah 40:3 in the following verse (v. 3),
What's fascinating is that Mark is not the only one to use Malachi 3:1 in this way. Other authors also do so: Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:17; 7:27
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the Others, Matthew and Luke observed this by the Holy Spirit, and Mark, is claimed by many Church Fathers and John's Disciples Papias and Polycarp, that Mark, was related to Peter and Peter's Disciple. And the claim states: Peter spoke in Aramaic/Hebrew, and Mark fluent also in Greek, translated Peter's words to Greek. So, that would make first hand experiences for Matthew, Luke, and Peter and they all used same Scripture Reference for this point.
We are not to doubt for one moment that Mark was as fully divinely inspired as all the other writers (all legends aside). Just look at the originality of the beginning of his Gospel. It resembles none of the others. It also has many unique aspects. Luke was also inspired "from above" -- Heaven (anothen).
All of this is excellent Biblical proof/evidence that John 1:1 points to two distinct persons identified as God. Moreover, (and this is NOT" a knock) I think it would have been instructive to mention at Malachi 3:1, the part that says, "and the messenger of the covenant,, in whom you delight." It refers back to the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament as the preincarnate Jesus Christ. Keep up the good work.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
from what i have been able to know about the personal lives of the Disciples before they met Jesus, many were business men. even the fishermen like Peter, Andrew, James, and John, says where we believe, they had employees and that James and John's Dad oversaw the boats Peter,Andrew, James, John, the Dad owned.
What i am getting at, they were smart and intelligent. Jesus, did not pick stupid people. even Judas, was shrewd in business. I wonder if the not every Disciple kept some sort of notes and wrote down thoughts that some how were deemed less important. What a complete picture we might have actually had. but some how, it was thwarted?
anyway, i believe as the Disciples wisdom and knowledge grew in understanding Jesus, so were moments they were applying their experiences to the Tanakh/Scrolls. They all, being Jews, would have recited the entire Tanakh/Old Testament enough times, they never would forget it. I think it was one of those Moments, and we see it written in the Gospels.
And like i mentioned, we have literal and multiple written accounts to VERIFY, that Peter spoke, and his relative and Disciple, Mark, translated it into the Greek Translation.
What i am getting at, they were smart and intelligent. Jesus, did not pick stupid people. even Judas, was shrewd in business. I wonder if the not every Disciple kept some sort of notes and wrote down thoughts that some how were deemed less important. What a complete picture we might have actually had. but some how, it was thwarted?
anyway, i believe as the Disciples wisdom and knowledge grew in understanding Jesus, so were moments they were applying their experiences to the Tanakh/Scrolls. They all, being Jews, would have recited the entire Tanakh/Old Testament enough times, they never would forget it. I think it was one of those Moments, and we see it written in the Gospels.
And like i mentioned, we have literal and multiple written accounts to VERIFY, that Peter spoke, and his relative and Disciple, Mark, translated it into the Greek Translation.