Interesting. This means two or three human witnesses in an attempt to persuade another man of his wrongness. Paul's revelation was to him alone.
Acts 9: 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 5 He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do." 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.
Compare this to Acts 22: 6 "On that journey as I drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' 8 I replied, 'Who are you, sir?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.' 9 My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
In Acts 2, the companions heard the voice but saw nobody. In Acts 9, the companions saw a great light but heard nothing. Paul gets this wrong; Luke wrote these two opposing verses. Which is correct? You talk about two or three witnesses, but Paul (and Luke) cannot get the revelation to Paul (which is the most significant thing in his life) consistent.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:...
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 1: 1-7).
In this passage, Jesus is described as the Son of God (from the seed of David, who was also a Son of God) given the title Lord (a human title as separate from God the Father's Divine title).
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen". (2 Cor. 13:14).
This can be explained to fit into the Trinitarian formula, but it cannot be used as proof of it. For example, it could also be explained to fit into JW theology, or LDS beliefs as well. Just as easily as Christian theology.
"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". (2 Cor. 13:1).
Interesting twist; you are trying to make the witnesses the Trinity, when Paul does not express the Trinity as given in Nicea. First time I've seen that tried. It fails, but a very good try.
If, *in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses would every word be established*,and those *witnesses were God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit*, why would the Disciples, the early Church, and Paul not understand *the Trinity*?
The premise does not hold. If God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit came down to the mountaintop and witnessed to the people about Paul, then that is one thing. If you start with a premise and look for supporting evidence, that is entirely different than starting from first principles (here, Pauline Scripture only) and attempting to prove the Nicene Trinitarian formula. You cannot. Nobody can, since it is not there.
Actually, I think the Trinity is very clear in scripture, in the light of 2 or 3 witnesses, establishing every word.
Very novel attempt; very innovative. The Trinity does not witness for Paul here, though. Good try.
Don't start this again.
Attempting to twist the clear words and understanding is an effort in futility.
Mark, the NIV tries to remove this blatant inconsistency by altering the text in Act 22 to read:
9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
The Greek word used in manuscripts is akouo (this is where we get our "acoustics" from), which means to hear. In a few instances it is translated as hearken, or give audience, but the NIV experts argue that it also means to perceive, which then they stretch to mean "understand."
This way, they can "patch up" the inconsistency in order to preserve the "inerrancy." The Book has been "cooked" now for almost 2,000 years by adding, deleting, or otherwise redacting, so it is no wonder that the Bible shows an impressive degree of internal consistency, although its perfection is still the making. :)