The Holy spirit isn't in the bible.

read post 73

God didnt say you would have all the answers now. Humans see through the glass dimly . I walk by faith not by sight. The spirit teaches me and I believe.

You cannot please God without faith!

Im shaking the dust off. Bye

there's no scripture with trinity, so there's no trinity to have faith in.

angel2u2 post #73 does not answer the question. You accepted the rendering which is how it's proposed in most instances. Nevertheless, let's see how well you can stand on your assertion that there is no trinity to have faith in. First explain what is a trinity? Then, who is God? What does God mean?

Hello angel2u2! Please understand that I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just trying to figure something out. So, please bare with me...

Here, (post #3) we see that you brought up Matthew 28:19 to prove your point.
Here, (post #40) I'm using that same verse to prove that it really does say, "and of the Holy Ghost".
Here, (post #42) you're saying that the same verse that you're using to prove a point about what is actually said, isn't even scripture?
I'm sorry, but I'm really trying to figure this out. If you claim this isn't scripture, but you're wanting to prove a point about what is said in the Bible, then why use it? Also, what makes you say that this isn't scripture?

at first i thought the holy spirit in matthew 28.19 was in the nominative case, later on i discovered it was actually in the genitive case. I'm winging this whole investigation. not something someone told me.
there's lots of evidence for matthew 28.19 being spurious. go here if interested in examining the reasons why.

Is Matthew 28:19 Spurious

for me the 3 biggest reasons,are that it contradicts scripture that says to baptism in Jesus name, the Eusebian text which predates the earliest manuscript evidence which omits the father son holy ghost reading, and it doesn't make any sense because it doesn't state what name the father and son and holy ghost is. no scripture gives a name for the holy spirit, and no scripture even says 'the holy spirit" except I found one so far that says it in the genitive case.

see, when I started, i had this idea that 'the holy spirit' in matthew 28.19 was nominative, and i was curious to see if there was another scripture in the nominative case using 'the holy spirit". If there wasn't then it would be just one more big nail in the coffin for the 3rd person of the trinity. but it's in the genitive, and there is one other verse in the genitive saying 'of the holy spirit". But i'm wondering about that, I mean the, holy,, and spirit are all genitive conjugations. so does that mean it has to be translated as "of the holy spirit" ?? or is there some other possibility.?

Trinity references
Gen_1:26; Gen_3:22; Isa_6:3; Isa_6:8; Isa_11:2-3; Isa_42:1; Mat_12:18; Isa_48:16; Isa_61:1-3; Luk_4:18; Isa_63:9-10; Mat_1:18; Mat_1:20; Mat_3:11; Mar_1:8; Luk_3:16; Mat_12:28; Mat_28:19; Luk_1:35; Luk_3:22; Mat_3:16; Luk_4:1; Luk_4:14; Joh_1:32-33; Joh_3:34-35; Joh_7:39; Joh_14:16-17; Joh_14:26; Joh_15:26; Joh_16:7; Joh_16:13-15; Joh_20:22; Act_1:2; Act_1:4-5; Act_2:33; Act_10:36-38; Rom_1:3-4; Rom_8:9-11; Rom_8:26-27; 1Co_2:10-11; 1Co_6:19; 1Co_8:6; 1Co_12:3-6; 2Co_1:21-22; 2Co_5:5; 2Co_3:17; 2Co_13:14; Gal_4:4; Gal_4:6; Phi_1:19; Col_2:2; 2Th_2:13-14; 2Th_2:16; 1Ti_3:16; Tit_3:4-6; Heb_9:14; 1Pe_1:2; 1Pe_3:18; 1Jo_5:6-7; Rev_4:8

Thank you for that link. I did review it. I see that they are looking at the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus both of which came down the Alexandrian text Line. These two manuscripts were discarded and hidden for 1500 years. They are considered corrupted manuscripts. They disagree with each other in over 3000 places in the Gospels alone. It is the Vatican MSS (which include the Apocrypha) that the translators mostly relied upon. Both had their roots in Alexandria and show the influence of Origen. (Data from H.C. Hoskier's “Codex B and its Allies”) Origen became head of the catechetical school. A man of superior intellect he however denied the Bible's historicity, eternal punishment, the Holy Spirit's eternality, salvation by grace etc… He was given to the allegorizing of scripture. (Data from; “Final Authority” by William P. Grady)

Maybe they are hard of hearing, it might help it you wrote louder considering Luke 12:3....

But no they don't, they really don't grasp it, if they did then they would grasp the "if ye being" part written in Luke 11:13

Neither do they grasp that which is written in John 3:20

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html#Evidence%20Of%20The%20Versions

just a tiny sample of the multitudinous evidence against the authenticity of matthew 28.29. And without Matthew 28.19 the trinity doctrine will sink like a rock in the ocean.. There'll be nothing to hang the trinity hat on.

Yet you, of all people, miraculously pulled it off. Out of all the scholars who have spent countless years translating, you got it all figured out. Can you see why there isnt much credit being given to you here?

Think about it. You are in a room of 100 people. Lets say 100 biblical scholars. (all of which are seasoned in greek translation) You say to them what you have just posted. What are the odds you are the odd man out and are probably wrong. What is it about your view/ translation of this, that makes you so certain?

Ponder this.

No it wouldn't work. because tradition trumps reason , logic , scripture and everything every time.

It's not me that is saying there is no definite article before holy spirit or spirit holy, grammar tags say it, and bible translations put the definite article in when according to the interlinears i read ,it''s not there. I just pit one source against the other, Decide for yourself who is right, the interlinear, the greek text , or bible translators. I believe the interlinears when they disagree with a translation, as do most people except when it steps on their doctrines.

Okay, then I challenge you this.... Find one person, of notable credibility that agrees with you. And i'm not saying on here. I am saying, research further where this has been proposed before. Find an essay, white paper, anything.

i challenge you to find one notable credibility that disagrees with the translation found in this interlinear on john 14.26.
John 14 Interlinear Bible


note that they didn't translate the definite article before holy. This translation puts the definite article in in the greek but takes it out in the english before the word holy.