tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4514726127775216123.post4099950261865202787..comments2020-05-10T14:58:23.496-07:00Comments on Hellenisti ginoskeis: do you know Greek?: 1 Peter 1:1-2—Trinitarian writingDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4514726127775216123.post-71582389963990659792007-04-06T11:47:00.000-07:002007-04-06T11:47:00.000-07:00I see what you mean, and agree!I see what you mean, and agree!Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4514726127775216123.post-77156045132544410442007-04-06T11:04:00.000-07:002007-04-06T11:04:00.000-07:00If my purpose were to prove the doctrine of the Tr...If my purpose were to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, that would have been one of many great places to go.<BR/><BR/>However, Matthew 28:19 would not have been an example of how "the thinking of the apostles was so thoroughly Trinitarian that it fairly bubbled up in their wording, almost no matter what they wrote."DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4514726127775216123.post-22271237489460735812007-04-06T08:59:00.000-07:002007-04-06T08:59:00.000-07:00Dear brother, why not turn to Matthew 28:19 and th...Dear brother, why not turn to Matthew 28:19 and the use of <I>onoma</I> (clearly singular) there for the doctrine?<BR/><BR/>Is it only because you are working your way through 1 Peter, or do you view this passage as stronger Trinitarian support for some reason?<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com