One of the biggest mistakes. -John 1:1

101G said:

LOL, DNA

Click to expand...

Indeed,


In fact, DNA is language, it is even letters/words.

He, the Father, is a "Person", even His person (Job 13:8; Hebrews 1:3), of which Jesus (the Son) is the "express image" of.

As for the rest, see "His person" (Job 13:8); "form of God" (Philippians 2:6), "shape" (John 5:37), "image" (Genesis 1:26,27; Hebrews 1:3), "likeness" (Genesis 1:26,27), "being" (Acts 17:28), has a very real movable "Throne" on which He sits (Daniel 7:9-10; Revelation 4-5, &c), has "the hair of his head like the pure wool" (Daniel 7:9), "whose garment was white as snow" (Daniel 7:9), has a "right hand" (Revelation 5:1; Acts 7:55-56), able to be looked upon, "to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone" (Revelation 4:2), having His own "nature" (Galatians 4:8).

See also "back parts" (Exodus 33:23), and even a "divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), see also "under his feet" (Exodus 24:20).

The angels are also called 'spirits' and "persons" ("fellows"; Hebrews 1:9), "young man" (Mark 16:5; Daniel 9:21; &c), and yet have real celestial (Heavenly) "bodies" with unfallen angelic "flesh" (1 Corinthians 15:35-58; Jude 1:7, Genesis 17-19, &c) an unfallen heavenly "nature" (Hebrews 2:16), where as we have bodies terrestrial (dust).

The Son is also a "person" (Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 2:10; Matthew 27:24; Deuteronomy 27:25; &c).

So is the Holy Ghost (John 14:16; &c)

Mankind are also called 'spirits' (1 Peter 3:19; Hebrews 12:23) and yet are real tangible beings, with bodies (made of dust).


The eternal Son shares the very Deity nature of His eternal Heavenly Father, even as I share the human nature of my earthly father.

John 8:58 (NKJV)
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
Exodus 3:14 (NKJV)
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Jesus is God!

kcnalp said:

John 8:58 (NKJV)
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
Exodus 3:14 (NKJV)
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Jesus is God!

Click to expand...

Yep, most assuredly, Jesus is God (John 1:1). Jesus is just not the Person/Being of the Father, whom He (Jesus) was "with" "in the beginning" (see also John 17:5).

janc said:

For a long time people have thought that the Word is a separate person, Trinitarians believe the Word is another eternal God in a Trinity and Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Word is the first created being, there are also people who believe the Word is an "idea/plan" but all three of these claims are false.
The Word is the spoken word of God, it is the expression of God's Spirit, everything he speaks is his Word. Therefore there was no Son of God before the birth of the Messiah, the Son of God only began to exist from his human birth, but the Spirit who was in him, who spoke to men, is eternal, this Spirit has no beginning, this Spirit who is the Father spoke to men, it was he who said to the Pharisees in the Son: "Before Abraham was I am". God spoke in the Son, and that is why it is said that the Word became flesh.
I am not a teacher but I am absolutely sure about this one, so I tell you you must wake up.

The Word is not a Trinity, nor a created being, nor a plan, but the Word is the Word of God.

Click to expand...

In the beginning was the Word. The Word was there before God.

Verse 2 tells us Christ's personality and deity existed before the beginning, he was there already.
.

ReChoired said:

Yep, most assuredly, Jesus is God (John 1:1). Jesus is just not the Person/Being of the Father, whom He (Jesus) was "with" "in the beginning" (see also John 17:5).

Click to expand...

Matt 28 ... baptizing them in the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

GINOLJC, to all.

ReChoired said:

Adam the first man is a type of Jesus Christ, the second man, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). What does it have to do with our topic?

Click to expand...

First thanks for the reply, second, another ERROR on your part. Adam is not a type of Christ, but an IMAGE of God to come, understand the difference.
Type: a person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics of something

Image: a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.

for if Adam was Christ type, then Christ the Lord would have Fail........ for Adam failed, meaning he sin, and christ did not sin, so all those Typology you posted about adam being christ type, FALSE.

and third the Lord Jesus is the ordinal Last, as John 1:1 states, the WORD was "WITH" God and is God. meaning he is the "ADAM" to come.... that's what it have to do with this topic.

ReChoired said:

Just as Adam was subject to God his Father (Luke 3:38), so too is Jesus subject to His Father. Differing Persons/Beings. Adam the first was not God (Deity), and neither is the Son (Jesus) the Father (Ancient of Days).

Click to expand...

another ERROR, better know as a lie. (the Christ is to "BE", "BE", "BE" subject, which is another topic all of it's OWN, which i see you have no clue know ing the difference between "be subject", and "subject to" ... lol). when will you learn... oh well...

who is the "Ancient of Days", Daniel 7:9 "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire."
Daniel 7:10 "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."
NOW THIS,
Revelation 1:12 "And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;"
Revelation 1:13 "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."
Revelation 1:14 "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;"
Revelation 1:15 "And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."

SAME PERSON .... (smile) ... lol. the Ancient of Days is JESUS as the ordinal First......BINGO.

ReChoired said:

Jesus, the eternal son of the Father, was always and ever "with" the Father,

Click to expand...

You haven't understood yet, have you... there is only ONE ETERNAL PERSON, and that one PERSON is JESUS. he is Father, ordinal First, LORD, and Son, ordinal Last, Lord. see the term "with" here in the Godhead means it's the same one person only "shared"....

ReChoired said:

and when "sin" came into the world, The Father promised to send the Son (Genesis 3:15) in the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh (Romans 8:3). This shows again, two Persons/Beings, The Father sends, and the Son is sent from the bosom of the Father.

Click to expand...

another ERROR on your part better know as a falsehood... listen it was GOD who came, Son in reference to God means "God in Flesh". listen and understand, John 10:31 "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."John 10:32 "Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?"
John 10:33 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."
DID YOU HEAR THAT? NOT MAKE YOURSELF THE "SON OF GOD", BUT GOD HIMSELF. here's the revelation, in the verse before, he said this, John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." the Jews knew Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" they knew it like the back of their hand. by sauing, "I and my Father are one". the Jews. KNEW, God was coming, but not like a natural man, (they was looking for a king riding in on a white horse and destorying the occupying forces of their land). they kew God was coming, (for Isaiah 35:4 told them so, read it), but many believe not, as did Isaiah 9:6 also told them. just as today, many cannot believe how that "son" in Isaiah 9:6 is the "EVERLASTING FATHER". even right here today the Jews have some kindfolk who still don't believe that Jesus is the ONE TRUE and LIVING GOD, and all of them are not Jews... for they cannot understand that he is the Ordinal Last of Himself in flesh.... (smile).

understand, the term Son of God is God, (God, who is Spirit per John 4:24) is God manifested in flesh. that's what the Jews said, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." NOTICE, not for being the "son of God", but God himself........... BINGO.

so ReChoired, that ignorant statement you made that the, "the eternal son of the Father, was always and ever "with" the Father," lol, he is the Father only shared in flesh. why do you think the term say, "Son...... of God", for "of" translates the genitive case of nouns, with various shades of meaning. Of these the subjective and objective are mentioned here, which need careful distinction.

Listen if I say the spirit of 101G, is that's ReChoired spirit? no, it's 101G's spirit. listen, Son of God, notice the capital "S" in Son, meaning God himself in flesh.... BINGO. man oh man this is too easy.

NOW, your other unlearned question, which we just answered above, now explained, listen.

ReChoired said:

What? Please produce the scripture where "the Son is the Father "shared" in Flesh". (waits for 1 Timothy 3:16 to be totally ripped from context, along with John 14 & 17)

Click to expand...

here's the SCRIPTURE, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

FORM, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

definition #3 states Jesus is the SAME NATURE, but did you ever took time to see what KIND of NATURE the Lord Jesus the ordinal Last have "with" the Spirit that he's "EQUAL WITH?"... no you didn't so shame on you. you should have study the ROOT word of "Form which is G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n. 1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something)
and portion is another word for "SHARE", so the Lord Jesus the Christ, the ordinal last is the "THE EQUAL SHARE OF GOD HIMSELF IN FLESH", meaning GON in flesh, or the "Son of God, hello, hello... . that's why those jews wanted to kill him because being a man, (Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"), maketh himself ... "GOD"... (smile, LOL), see what the Jews was saying NOW? this is too easy to understand. comparing scriptures with scripture to KNOW THE THINGS OF GOD, even his eternal powers and "GODHEAD". BINGO.

Now your 1 Timothy 3:16 just confirms what we just said above, ... that's why he the Lord Jesus the ordinal Last, can be in heaven, (Spirit), and on earth, (shared as a man), at the very same time, per John 3:13... BINGO

ReChoired?, you are reproved again. we suggest you study with the Holy Ghost before you put your foot in your mouth again. no put down but trying to save you some embarrassment ok. hopefully one day you will learn.

PICJAG.

ReChoired said:

Indeed,

1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
1Co 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
In fact, DNA is language, it is even letters/words.

Click to expand...

in order for NATURAL flesh to live it require ... "Blood". Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
now, in our resurrected bodies do we have blood?...... no.

PICJAG.

....

2 Chr. 34:19 said:

“...We believe in The H.S., Who proceeds from The Father and The Son...”

Click to expand...

What's your point?

kcnalp said:

Matt 28 ... baptizing them in the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, "God" is not the name. The family name is JEHOVAH.

JEHOVAH is a man made name from a verb. and verbs are not NOUNS which identify a person by name. so Jehovah is a false fake name by man to deceive. so where did the Names Jehovah, and, Yahweh, Hebrew, come from?. these name came from, what is know as the tetragrammaton, and men tampered with it by adding vowels (pointers) to these four letters. the tetragrammaton is a term from the Greek word, τετραγράμματον, meaning, "a word having four letters". It is the Hebrew written word, or four letters, (יהוה), Yodh, He, Waw, He, hence the transliteration into English, YHWH, or JHVH by some. these four letters, suppose to be the unpronounced name of God. and from these four letters come the man made names Yahweh, Hebrew, and Jehovah, English.

Jehovah, nor Yahweh is God personal name. lets see how they derived those names from the tetragrammaton. The word "JEHOVAH" was formed by merging the three vowels (e, o, and a) into the Romanized (Latinized) four letter version JHVH to get, JeHoVaH. and the word "YAHWEH" was formed by merging the vowels (a, and e), into the four letter version to get, YaHWeH. so we have the English man made, and the Hebrew man made form of God's supposed unpronounced name. here is the mistake. they, (the translator), added vowels to the four letter consonant, to make up a name to pronounce. one can never add or take away from the WORD of God. when one do, they put the spiritual noose around their own necks. they added vowels to give God a personal name, because they knew that YHWH is a verb, and not a noun. and because the suppose name was lost, (which it was not), which the Jews said was forbidden to pronounce. so they, (the translators), made a guess at the name where pointers should be. this was a grave mistake on their part. as said, when you add to the word of God you just put the spiritual noose around your neck. arbitrarily, the translators injected the vowels into the four letter consonant to come up with the names, "YaHWeH", and, "JeHoVaH". if they would have transliterated the tetragrammaton, which would have been a better lie, but that would not work either, for " I AM THAT I AM", or H1961 הָיָה hayah (haw-yaw) v as said is a VERB. and verbs are not NOUNS. BINGO, so Jehovah, nor Yahweh is NOT God personal name.

but yet again, another Christian moment moment to consider, people claim they are christian, and yet don't believe the Lord Jesus. case in point, John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

well if the Lord Jesus came in his Father's name, well how come his Name is not Jehovah, or Yahweh? ....... well? answer because the Father's name is not Jehovah, or Yahweh ... hello, hello. the bible clearly tells us the NAME to baptize in, "JESUS". the apostle Peter by the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Now the apostle Paul by the Holy Ghost, Acts 19:1 "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,"
Acts 19:2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."
Acts 19:3 "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism."
Acts 19:4 "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

well it seem like the false names Jehovah, or Yahweh are not working. because neither are God's Holy Name.

for the scriptures are correct, Romans 2:24 "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written." where is that written? answer, Isaiah 52:5 "Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed." HOW MUCH? "every day",

every day? yes, even today, what a shame on evil men. false teaching will do that to you "every Day"... so no, the TRUE NAME of GOD is "JESUS".

PICJAG.

tigger 2 said:

What is really intended at Is. 9:6?

First, one probable answer: the words are to be taken in their secondary sense (e.g., 'a mighty god' rather than 'the mighty God').

Another probable answer is that the name, like so many personal names of Israelites, was intended as a praise or description of the Eternal Father, God Almighty, the only true God, Jehovah.

For example,

“JEHU - ‘Jehovah is he.’


(1.) The son of Obed, and father of Azariah (1 Chronicles 2:38) [and three others in scripture]. - Easton’s Bible Dictionary, ‘Jehu,’ from Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ. (Also p. 331, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House, 1982.)

So four different men (one was a king), worshipers of the one true God, Jehovah, were named ‘He is Jehovah’ in the Holy Scriptures! This popular Israelite name obviously was not intended to describe the person who bore it!

Another important detail about personal names is that those names composed of more than one Hebrew word (e.g., Immanuel; Isaiah; Michael; Jehoshabeath; etc.) is that minor words such as prepositions ('of',' 'in,' 'with', 'on,' etc.) and some verbs such as 'is,' 'are,' etc. are omitted in the scriptures.

For instance, two of the best-known Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.” And no scholar ever claims that it means that Elimelech himself was "God King."

But perhaps most instructive of all is the compound name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3

Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’” - TLB. - - “They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.” - NLV.

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)

to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:


".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;


[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means (a)“quick to the plunder; (b) swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: (a)“For unto us a child is born; (b) unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to some trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God. It is far from the trinity 'proof' that so many want it to be.

Click to expand...

Again well done..and there is even more to add to this Isaiah scripture.....it's a shame that most folks have an ill-formed predefined view of who the Father and Son really are......it is very convenience and grossly wrong to suggest there is a Holy Trinity found in scripture as in this scripture passage. Many/ really most religions and groups, both truly pagan and not (pseudo-Christian) are based on this foundational error...a shame....

Bless you

APAK

ReChoired said:

Yeah, "God" is not the name. The family name is JEHOVAH.

Click to expand...

Gen 1 God said let US make man in OUR image according to OUR likeness.
Matt 28 ... baptizing them in the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Only one God!

ReChoired said:

Yeah, "God" is not the name. The family name is JEHOVAH.

Click to expand...

Let me guess, another JW trying to rewrite our Christian Bible?

kcnalp said:

Let me guess, another JW trying to rewrite our Christian Bible?

Click to expand...

I already stated that I am Seventh-day Adventist, here:

ReChoired said:

No, by God's grace, I am a member of the Seventh-day Adventist remnant movement.

You may see what we teach here:

I teach from the King James Bible (KJB). The NWT is a severely corrupted text, based in Alexandrian texts, such as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus.

Yes, the "name" (Matthew 28:19 KJB) speaks of the singular character. (see 1 Samuel 25:25, "name is, so is"), it is family JEHOVAH. Like family "Smith". One name, many persons in the family, such as Dad Smith, Son Smith Jr and Uncle Smith.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

Click to expand...

You even acknowledged that here:

kcnalp said:

Don't SDA's also deny Jesus is God and Hell is eternal?

Click to expand...

I even further responded here:

ReChoired said:

No. Jesus is God, Deity, I AM, uncreated Creator, Almighty, &c, but not the Person/Being of the Father, neither the Person/Being of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

We deny the false and blasphemous doctrine of devils which teaches eternal torment. We acknowledge "hell" and "hell fire", and "lake of fire" (which will utterly consume the wicked in the time to come into smoke and ashes, and be no more). Most people misunderstand "hell" in the bible.

Click to expand...

And it kept going.

How did you forget so soon?

At Matt. 28:19, we find,

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular in the Greek] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” - RSV.

It is true that “name” (onoma in NT Greek) can mean “authority,” “power,” etc., but it is “in general of the name by which a person or thing is called” - p. 771, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine.


New Testament language scholars tell us that “name” (onoma) usually refers to a personal name (or proper noun for a thing). So why do even some very trinitarian NT language experts (who certainly want it to mean a single personal name for three “persons”!) say that it really isn’t being used that way in Matt. 28:19?

Because that same NT language expert who is so respected by trinitarians tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, Vine. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name” (“authority,” “power”) he says that it is used

“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19;”

Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:

“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

For example, see Acts 4:7 -- the Jews asked "By what power, or in what name, have ye done this? " Peter answered "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (v. 10). ASV.


And, “So the two disciples were brought in before them. “By what power, or by whose authority have you done this?” the Council demanded.” - Acts 4:7, TLB. (Cf. NCV; ICB; EXB.)

Noted trinitarian scholars McClintock and Strong say in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature concerning Matthew 28:18-20:

"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

And trinitarian scholar Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae [including Matthew 28:19, of course] of the NT."

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, if the holy spirit is not a person, to find this single instance of the word “name” being used with “the holy spirit” where it is used in the phrase beginning with “in the name of...” which is specifically linked to the minority meaning of “authority,” “power,” etc.


What should be surprising (beyond all credibility, in fact) would be that the holy spirit is a person, equally God, who never has the word onoma (“name”) used for “Him” in its most-used sense of “personal name” (as do the Father and the Son—hundreds of times).

The fact that “name” is singular at Matt. 28:19 is only further proof that “authority” or “power” was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural “names” would be used (compare Rev. 21:12). Even trinitarians admit that their God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those “persons” has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not)! Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different “persons,” the plural “names” would have been used in this scripture.

Since it clearly means “in recognition of the power, or authority of,” it is perfectly correct to use “name” in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, “I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice.”

There is a famous statement in United States history that perfectly illustrates this use of the singular “name” when it is being used to mean “in recognition of power or authority.” Ethan Allen, writing about his capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, quoted the words he spoke when the British commander of that fort asked him by what authority Allen had captured it.

Ethan Allen replied:

“In the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress.” - p. 100, A Book About American History, Stimpson, Fawcett Publ., 1962 printing. (Also see Rebels and Redcoats, p. 54, Scheer and Rankin, Mentor Books, 1959 printing; and p. 167, Vol. 1, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, the 1955 abridgment of the New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.)

How ludicrous it would be to conclude that Allen really meant that Jehovah and the Continental Congress had the same personal name and were both equally God!

In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian “evidence” for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian “proofs”! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit found in scripture! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

Anyone want to see Patterns Of Evidence?

Patterns Of Evidence - The Exodus (Tim Mahoney)
Matthew_ten_Verseight

Patterns Of Evidence - The Moses Controversy (Tim Mahoney)
Matthew_ten_Verseight

Patterns Of Evidence - The Red Sea Miracle Part 1
Matthew_ten_Verseight

Patterns Of Evidence - The Red Sea Miracle - Part 2
Matthew_ten_Verseight

tigger 2 said:

Since it clearly means “in recognition of the power, or authority of,” it is perfectly correct to use “name” in the singular.

Click to expand...

the "authority of?", Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

here the word "POWER" is
G1849 ἐξουσία exousia (e-xou-siy'-a) n.
1. authority, privilege, permission, the right to do something.
2. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom.
3. (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence.
[from G1832 (in the sense of ability)]
KJV: authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength
Root(s): G1832

and there is no power but of God. see verse 1 above. and God is a "he" according to the Lord Jesus per Matthew 19:4. one Person, one NAME... JESUS. and the titles Father and Son is of one the PERSON the Holy Spirit, who is the Lord Jesus.

PICJAG

Janc said:
For a long time people have thought that the Word is a separate person, Trinitarians believe the Word is another eternal God in a Trinity and Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Word is the first created being, there are also people who believe the Word is an "idea/plan" but all three of these claims are false.
The Word is the spoken word of God, it is the expression of God's Spirit, everything he speaks is his Word. Therefore there was no Son of God before the birth of the Messiah, the Son of God only began to exist from his human birth.[/Quote\]

The scriptures say the apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. John 1:14;3:16,18; 1John 4:9 This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the "Word," “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” John 1:1,2; 17:5,24 At that time while in his pre-human state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.” 1John 4:9.

He is described as having “a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father,” the one residing “in the bosom position with the Father.” John 1:14,18 Since the scriptures say the Only Begotten Son of God had a glory before the world was, this is what I believe. If the Only Begotten Son Of God didn't exist as a person before he became human, how could the Only Begotten Son of God have a glory before he became human if he wasn't a person before the birth of the Messiah? John17:5 However you choose to answer this question, I know that the scriptures show that the Only Begotten Son of God exiisted before he became human. If others don't want to believe that, that's their choice.

Jeremiah 17:10 (NKJV)
10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings. Revelation 2:18-23 (NKJV)
'These things says the Son of God, … 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Amen Jesus! You are God.

kcnalp said:

Jeremiah 17:10 (NKJV)
10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings. Revelation 2:18-23 (NKJV)
'These things says the Son of God, … 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Amen Jesus! You are God.

Click to expand...

GINOLJC, to all.
ON point, and 100% correct.

May we add this to clearly affirm what you said, "Jesus is God, again". watch how the Holy Ghost by the Plamist makes a direct statement that it is GOD who trieth the hearts and reins, (who is Jesus). Psalms 7:9 "Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins." here clearly, the term God is shown to be the one who is Jesus, (Rev 2:23 kjv). and God is a "Spirit", who is Holy, meaning Jesus is God the Holy Spirit. BINGO.

Good spiritual eyes there kcnalp.

1 Corinthians 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
1 Corinthians 2:13 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

PICJAG.