BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

May 7, 2026
178
51
28
55
ok
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Yes the Baptism of the spirit is what makes a Christian a Christian
no the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ the way the truth and the life!

mt. 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:

thks

A sacrament is the fruit of the sacrifice of Christ, an outward (visible) sign that signifies what it accomplishes inward spirituality. (invisible) washing away sin by the merits of the blood of Christ!

we cannot have the inward action of grace without the outward sacrament of baptism!

Washing ez 36:25-27 zech 13:1 acts 22:16 titus 3:5

Christian baptism is an outward sign of the inward action of grace, or merits of Christ’s passion, blood, and death applied to our souls!

We cannot see the inward action of grace purifying the soul, so God gave us the outward “sign” of water washing the body to indicate the inward action of grace and connected the two.

The sacraments are signs of God’s grace! The sacraments signify what they accomplish!

The grace of justification in the power of the spirit is manifested by the sign of baptism! Jn 3:5 titus 3:5 water and the Spirit!

Jesus Christ is the sign and the sacrament!
 

PS95

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2024
2,714
1,825
113
Eastern Shore
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is that anything like leading Christians to JW poison?

Ephesians 4
4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I am not surprised that a JW would deny the baptism formula- which is clearly seen above- they also deny that there is one HOPE- they teach two classes with different hopes.
Their "gospel" is completely different than the gospel once delivered to the saints. Let them be accursed. (x2)
 

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
15,794
5,939
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ephesians 4
4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I am not surprised that a JW would deny the baptism formula- which is clearly seen above- they also deny that there is one HOPE- they teach two classes with different hopes.
Their "gospel" is completely different than the gospel once delivered to the saints. Let them be accursed. (x2)
Michael is the JW savior. Jesus is my Savior!
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo
May 7, 2026
178
51
28
55
ok
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Ephesians 4
4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I am not surprised that a JW would deny the baptism formula- which is clearly seen above- they also deny that there is one HOPE- they teach two classes with different hopes.
Their "gospel" is completely different than the gospel once delivered to the saints. Let them be accursed. (x2)
don't leave out 1 cor 12:13

Baptism implies water:

ez 36:25
Acts 8:36-38
acts 10:47
Jn 3:5
acts 22:16
1 cor 6:11
titus 3:5
heb 10:22

administered by the apostolic church:

mt 28:19
2 pet 1:11
2 cor 8:19

the only baptism is water baptism, the initial sacrament of the christian faith. water baptism includes, the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, & charity, sanctifying grace, and the life of the Spirit!




why all this water and washing?

((water))

John the baptist did not prepare the way by preaching faith alone!

Ex 36:25:27
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Jn 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(we must be born into the family of God)

((washing))

acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(saul becomes Paul a christian in baptism)


titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Baptism is the grace of justification:

Ex 36:25:27
baptism, new heart capable of love, and the Spirit!

Jn 3:5 baptism water & the Spirit!

Rom 5:5 Holy Spirit received in baptism cast His love abroad in our hearts so we can fulfill God's will!

1 cor 12:13 Baptism, filled with the Spirit!


Ez36:25-27

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Jn 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom 5:5
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

1 cor 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


thks
 

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
2,003
541
113
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Utter nonsense. Like all JWs posting incognito sewing your poisonous seeds of doubt into people about the scriptures-
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Neither have I ever been to any of their meetings. Either way, it is irrelevant.

I read though your rubbish-
Did you check out the 144 translations of the Bible that don't include the added Trinity corruption? That's 114 translations made between 1863 and 2025 (none of them made by Jehovah's Witnesses, so you can't blame it on them - the JW's didn't come into existence until 1931). Just randomly picking one (the 18th listed translation - The Power New Testament Revealing Jewish Roots (Ed. 3), William J. Morford, 2003) it says:

Matthew 28:19 in the Greek text contains a reference to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is considerable evidence that this phrase was added at the Nicean Council in 325 AD. Several early Christian theologians, who had seen the complete book of Matthew, attested that the early copies of Matthew did not contain the phrase.​

Or take the next one; translating from the Spanish it says - 'The Royal Code. The New Testament Version. Textual Hebrew Translation made from the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts in light of first-century Hebrew thought', by rabbi Prof. Daniel ben Avraham Hayyim:

19 “Go with urgency and make disciples as you can among all the nations.” *​

* The Hebrew text ends here. Of the remainder, we have two versions so far. One says, “...and make sure they are immersed in water in order to bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit. Make sure you teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of this present age.” The other, quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century, says, “and make sure they are immersed in water in my name.” The fact that all the instances of water immersion in the Apostles' Chronicles never use the baptismal formula “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but only “in the name of Yeshua,” that is, by his authority, indicates that the Hebrew text did not know of such a formula, for otherwise, how would the apostles have dared to disobey the Messiah's instructions? In every historical document on the subject, only the name Yeshua is used as the source of authority upon which the purification by water was administered to those returning to the Hebrew faith or to Gentiles undergoing conversion. See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5. Paul's use of the singular in 1 Corinthians 1:13 reveals a practice consistent with Acts.​

The next says, "The original reading almost without question did not have the later Trinitarian addition". Etc...

I don't think that the work of all those Bible scholars is "utter nonsense" or "rubbish". I certainly trust them more than I trust your statement of "Utter nonsense" and claim (without any references or quotes) that there is a lot of "proof to the contrary". That's not at all convincing!
 

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
2,003
541
113
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
What does all that have to do with "baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"??? What is your point?
I had written that "baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" was a spurious addition, a corruption of the Scriptures. You had admitted that you couldn't be bothered to read any of the information that I gave (or gave links to) to provide evidence to confirm my claim, saying that you were "too busy reading the Bible". So my reply, which you didn't understand, was to say that it is important to me that I do my best to verify that the English translations that I read are accurate. That is especially the case when I come across a verse that seems to be not in harmony with many other verses. I was convinced over 30 years ago that Matthew 28:19 had to be a corruption because it was not consistent with other New Testament verses, but I could not initially find any evidence to confirm my suspicion. Eventually evidence confirming my suspicions became available, which I gave links to. Those seeking will find that evidence too, those that can't be arsed, like you, will miss it!

The reference to Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares was to show that Jesus warned that the enemy (Satan) would plant false doctrines in the Church, and that we should take care to try and spot the lies and deceptions of Satan. This verse is an example of the lies and deceptions of Satan and his demons. We should want to learn and believe the true Sciptures (given under the inspiration of God) rather than the deceptions of Satan. My original post in this thread was to try and help others to learn what the true word of God was. The confusion of the man-made Trinity is a big tare that stops people understanding the truth.
 

PS95

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2024
2,714
1,825
113
Eastern Shore
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Neither have I ever been to any of their meetings. Either way, it is irrelevant.


Did you check out the 144 translations of the Bible that don't include the added Trinity corruption? That's 114 translations made between 1863 and 2025 (none of them made by Jehovah's Witnesses, so you can't blame it on them - the JW's didn't come into existence until 1931). Just randomly picking one (the 18th listed translation - The Power New Testament Revealing Jewish Roots (Ed. 3), William J. Morford, 2003) it says:

Matthew 28:19 in the Greek text contains a reference to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is considerable evidence that this phrase was added at the Nicean Council in 325 AD. Several early Christian theologians, who had seen the complete book of Matthew, attested that the early copies of Matthew did not contain the phrase.​

Or take the next one; translating from the Spanish it says - 'The Royal Code. The New Testament Version. Textual Hebrew Translation made from the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts in light of first-century Hebrew thought', by rabbi Prof. Daniel ben Avraham Hayyim:

19 “Go with urgency and make disciples as you can among all the nations.” *​

* The Hebrew text ends here. Of the remainder, we have two versions so far. One says, “...and make sure they are immersed in water in order to bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit. Make sure you teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of this present age.” The other, quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century, says, “and make sure they are immersed in water in my name.” The fact that all the instances of water immersion in the Apostles' Chronicles never use the baptismal formula “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but only “in the name of Yeshua,” that is, by his authority, indicates that the Hebrew text did not know of such a formula, for otherwise, how would the apostles have dared to disobey the Messiah's instructions? In every historical document on the subject, only the name Yeshua is used as the source of authority upon which the purification by water was administered to those returning to the Hebrew faith or to Gentiles undergoing conversion. See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5. Paul's use of the singular in 1 Corinthians 1:13 reveals a practice consistent with Acts.​

The next says, "The original reading almost without question did not have the later Trinitarian addition". Etc...

I don't think that the work of all those Bible scholars is "utter nonsense" or "rubbish". I certainly trust them more than I trust your statement of "Utter nonsense" and claim (without any references or quotes) that there is a lot of "proof to the contrary". That's not at all convincing!
Ok I see- fair enough. It's interesting how many of your posts sound like jws. Have you ever studied with them?

As to your points- yes- I read them as well as your other long thread, and I repeat- the evidence opposite of yours is far superior. Anyone can quote people with different opinions on just about any topic! That's a tool used often to spark debates. However, when a person who has no agenda looks at both sides- he has to decide where the evidence is greater. There is no doubt that yours fails the test.
You cited Shem Tob- c'mon now-
  1. It dates from the late 1300s (the medieval period, not antiquity). Far too late to be of any significant textual help.
  2. It doesn't even have the short reading of "baptizing in my name." Instead, Matt 28:19-20 reads "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." It mentions nothing of baptizing at all.
The other nonsense about the Pope admitting this supposed change is not in the Catholic Encyclopedia 2 as claimed. I'm not RCC- but a lie is still a lie.

--I am quite certain about reading the baptismal formula of Matthew in the Apostolic church fathers- that lays your other claims to rest. If you haven't read those I suggest you do. I'm sure you have some excuse like oh those corrupted manuscripts of Iraneus..


Bart Ehrman, a noted textual critic who is neither a Christian nor a trinitarian (in fact, he describes himself as an agnostic) agrees that the long form of the verse is original. The same blog reproducing Ehrman on this passage has a statement from another New Testament scholar who is also an authority on Eusebius. He notes:

  1. Eusebius' short form (Demonstratio 3.6, 7(bis); 9.11; Hist. Eccl. III.5.2; Psalms 65.6; 67.34; 76.20 (59.9 not the same reading); Isaiah 18.2; 34.16 (v.l.); Theophania 4.16; 5.17; 5.46; 5.49; Oratio 16.8) is the only textual evidence for the short reading
  2. Eusebius tends to abbreviate elsewhere
  3. Eusebius quotes the long form in Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; and Theophania 4.8
It is worth noting that Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, one of the places where he is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However, the statement is certainly not a quotation:

Eusebius writes is as:

God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.
However, the full text is:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Eusebius is certainly referring to Phil 2:9f, but his writing of it is not a quotation.

Manuscript Evidence II: Quotation from the Church Fathers​

Text critics don't just look at manuscripts of the text. They also examine quotations of passages in early writers. All quotations of Matthew 28:19 that include the "name" formula have the long version and not the short.

  • Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water
  • Tertullain On Baptism Para 13 Go, he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
  • Tertullian Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
  • Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII
  • Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus,
  • Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
  • and others
In total, searching only those Fathers prior to Nicea, I found 24 quotations of Matthew 28:19 using the full formula. There were no quotations amongst these writers with the short version. There were also quotations of the verse where they stopped prior to the list of names (i.e. "he commanded us to teach all nations"). I did not count those. In several of these, the full quote provides the basis for the argument supplied in the rest of the paragraph.

Even if Matthew 28:19 as we now know it was an addition, that does not eliminate the other trinitarian formulas present in the New Testament.

  • At the baptism of Jesus, all three persons are present (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32).
  • 2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you
  • 1 Peter 1:2-3a ...who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
  • Ephesians 4:4-6There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
I suggest to you, Keith, that you drop this idea. I certainly am! It is divisive to the body of Christ , and it is clearly overruled by the evidences to the contrary and this is only a taste. If you continue to insist on your own way here- it only reveals your dishonest bias. You don't have to agree to the trinity- I don't care an ounce. Let me ask you this if I may? I've noticed on this forum and others that those who attack the concept of a trinity in the scriptures- enjoy putting those who do accept in on trial. Obviously, there are many who say they accept it who don't even understand what it is saying properly- that is a favorite for people to attack.
I, on the other hand-prefer hearing other people's views on this.
So- who do YOU say Jesus is? My Q's to you are

1. Did the Lord Jesus have a living pre-existence in heaven before He became flesh? If so?..
2. Who was He?
3. Was Jesus a created angel before His earthly visit?
4. Was Jesus a merely a plan or an idea?
5 While on earth was Jesus a only human just like you and me or perhaps more "perfect" like Adam?

Let's hear your take..
 

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
15,794
5,939
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I had written that "baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" was a spurious addition, a corruption of the Scriptures. You had admitted that you couldn't be bothered to read any of the information that I gave (or gave links to) to provide evidence to confirm my claim, saying that you were "too busy reading the Bible". So my reply, which you didn't understand, was to say that it is important to me that I do my best to verify that the English translations that I read are accurate. That is especially the case when I come across a verse that seems to be not in harmony with many other verses. I was convinced over 30 years ago that Matthew 28:19 had to be a corruption because it was not consistent with other New Testament verses, but I could not initially find any evidence to confirm my suspicion. Eventually evidence confirming my suspicions became available, which I gave links to. Those seeking will find that evidence too, those that can't be arsed, like you, will miss it!

The reference to Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares was to show that Jesus warned that the enemy (Satan) would plant false doctrines in the Church, and that we should take care to try and spot the lies and deceptions of Satan. This verse is an example of the lies and deceptions of Satan and his demons. We should want to learn and believe the true Sciptures (given under the inspiration of God) rather than the deceptions of Satan. My original post in this thread was to try and help others to learn what the true word of God was. The confusion of the man-made Trinity is a big tare that stops people understanding the truth.
So you're saying the JW bible is corrupt!

From the JW bible: Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.
 

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
15,794
5,939
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok I see- fair enough. It's interesting how many of your posts sound like jws. Have you ever studied with them?

As to your points- yes- I read them as well as your other long thread, and I repeat- the evidence opposite of yours is far superior. Anyone can quote people with different opinions on just about any topic! That's a tool used often to spark debates. However, when a person who has no agenda looks at both sides- he has to decide where the evidence is greater. There is no doubt that yours fails the test.
You cited Shem Tob- c'mon now-
  1. It dates from the late 1300s (the medieval period, not antiquity). Far too late to be of any significant textual help.
  2. It doesn't even have the short reading of "baptizing in my name." Instead, Matt 28:19-20 reads "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." It mentions nothing of baptizing at all.
The other nonsense about the Pope admitting this supposed change is not in the Catholic Encyclopedia 2 as claimed. I'm not RCC- but a lie is still a lie.

--I am quite certain about reading the baptismal formula of Matthew in the Apostolic church fathers- that lays your other claims to rest. If you haven't read those I suggest you do. I'm sure you have some excuse like oh those corrupted manuscripts of Iraneus..


Bart Ehrman, a noted textual critic who is neither a Christian nor a trinitarian (in fact, he describes himself as an agnostic) agrees that the long form of the verse is original. The same blog reproducing Ehrman on this passage has a statement from another New Testament scholar who is also an authority on Eusebius. He notes:

  1. Eusebius' short form (Demonstratio 3.6, 7(bis); 9.11; Hist. Eccl. III.5.2; Psalms 65.6; 67.34; 76.20 (59.9 not the same reading); Isaiah 18.2; 34.16 (v.l.); Theophania 4.16; 5.17; 5.46; 5.49; Oratio 16.8) is the only textual evidence for the short reading
  2. Eusebius tends to abbreviate elsewhere
  3. Eusebius quotes the long form in Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; and Theophania 4.8
It is worth noting that Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, one of the places where he is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However, the statement is certainly not a quotation:

Eusebius writes is as:


However, the full text is:


Eusebius is certainly referring to Phil 2:9f, but his writing of it is not a quotation.

Manuscript Evidence II: Quotation from the Church Fathers​

Text critics don't just look at manuscripts of the text. They also examine quotations of passages in early writers. All quotations of Matthew 28:19 that include the "name" formula have the long version and not the short.

  • Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water
  • Tertullain On Baptism Para 13 Go, he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
  • Tertullian Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
  • Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII
  • Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus,
  • Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
  • and others
In total, searching only those Fathers prior to Nicea, I found 24 quotations of Matthew 28:19 using the full formula. There were no quotations amongst these writers with the short version. There were also quotations of the verse where they stopped prior to the list of names (i.e. "he commanded us to teach all nations"). I did not count those. In several of these, the full quote provides the basis for the argument supplied in the rest of the paragraph.

Even if Matthew 28:19 as we now know it was an addition, that does not eliminate the other trinitarian formulas present in the New Testament.

  • At the baptism of Jesus, all three persons are present (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32).
  • 2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you
  • 1 Peter 1:2-3a ...who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
  • Ephesians 4:4-6There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
I suggest to you, Keith, that you drop this idea. I certainly am! It is divisive to the body of Christ , and it is clearly overruled by the evidences to the contrary and this is only a taste. If you continue to insist on your own way here- it only reveals your dishonest bias. You don't have to agree to the trinity- I don't care an ounce. Let me ask you this if I may? I've noticed on this forum and others that those who attack the concept of a trinity in the scriptures- enjoy putting those who do accept in on trial. Obviously, there are many who say they accept it who don't even understand what it is saying properly- that is a favorite for people to attack.
I, on the other hand-prefer hearing other people's views on this.
So- who do YOU say Jesus is? My Q's to you are

1. Did the Lord Jesus have a living pre-existence in heaven before He became flesh? If so?..
2. Who was He?
3. Was Jesus a created angel before His earthly visit?
4. Was Jesus a merely a plan or an idea?
5 While on earth was Jesus a only human just like you and me or perhaps more "perfect" like Adam?

Let's hear your take..
Keithr condemned the JW bible.

From the JW bible: Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.
 

Pierac

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2021
1,007
288
83
63
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Mat 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit,

Name
- This word of course brings to mind an actual name, such as John Doe. But what does it mean to a Jew.

Name - 1. designates more than the external person; it tends to express his basic character, his personality. We might say it is an emanation of the person himself. 2. authority of, expressing attributes, in acknowledgment or confession of (NABD & VED).

This definition helps us in a verse like John 17:26:

"I (Jesus) made known to them your name and I will make it known."

Jesus obviously did not come to inform the Apostles that God’s name is YHWH. He came to explain God’s character, His attributes, His will, so that we could come to truly know God and follow His ways. This understanding of the word "name" along with the definition of the next word "baptize" will clear up this misunderstood verse.

Baptize - We always think of being baptized in water, either as infants or adults. Yes, this definition is used many times in the New Testament, but there is also another meaning that we must store in the back of our minds.

Baptize - 1. to unite together, to become closely bound to.

Now we will put together the definitions of "name" and "baptize" to get the true meaning of Matthew 28:19. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has this commentary on this verse:

"The phrase in Matthew 28:19, ‘baptize them in the name’ would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one in whose name he was baptized."

With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles had to go into the world and explain to the Gentiles who God is, who the Son (The Messiah) is, and also about the power that they would receive from God’s Spirit. If we take it to mean that we are to water baptize people in the actual name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, then why is it that no one in the Bible ever uses this formula to water baptize believers?

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 8:16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 10:47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Act 19:3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
.

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have Been baptized into His death?

As we share the gospel and make disciples, we’re not simply telling people to memorize a doctrine or repeat a prayer. We’re inviting them to be bound to the very essence of God’s presence and purpose. And we do this in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—not just as a formula, but as a reflection of God’s ongoing work in the world.

So let us go out and introduce people not just to a title but to a living relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let’s baptize them into a community of love, grace, and transformation.

I like what The Complete Jewish Study Bible Insight for Jews and Christians.... has to say about Matthew 28:19

Mat 28:19 Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh, and teach them to obey everything that I have commanded you.

As to water baptism… there is only one that truly matters!!!

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians settles this with characteristic economy. There is, he says, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:5-6). One baptism. Not one correct formula distinguished from incorrect ones — one reality into which every sincere act of baptism has been pointing across the whole history of the church. The infant baptized in a cathedral while a priest spoke ancient words over them. The adult immersed in a river while a congregation sang on the bank. The prisoner baptized in a prison sink. The deathbed believer baptized with a cup of water in a hospital room. All of them — imperfect vessels, varying forms, different words — all of them being incorporated into the one reality. The one baptism that is immersion into Christ himself.

That is what Jesus commanded at the end of Matthew. Not a formula to protect. A reality to enter. Go and immerse them into the reality of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The church has been doing exactly that — however imperfectly, however varied the forms — across every century since.
 

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
2,003
541
113
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
So you're saying the JW bible is corrupt!

From the JW bible: Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.
I'm saying that the New World Translation, like most common Bible translations, is a translation of a corrupted version of Matthew's Gospel.
 

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
15,794
5,939
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm saying that the New World Translation, like most common Bible translations, is a translation of a corrupted version of Matthew's Gospel.
Why are they 'corrupt'? The Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible.
 
Last edited:

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
2,003
541
113
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Ok I see- fair enough. It's interesting how many of your posts sound like jws. Have you ever studied with them?
No, I've never studied with them.

You cited Shem Tob- c'mon now-
  1. It dates from the late 1300s (the medieval period, not antiquity). Far too late to be of any significant textual help.
What Shem Tob wrote was written in the 1300s, but he included a copy of the Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel which was written earlier. George Howard writes (from page 160 of The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text):

Although the Hebrew Matthew of Shem-Tob is the earliest complete Hebrew text of the Gospel known, earlier Jewish and anti-Christian writings quote Matthew in Hebrew suggesting the possibility of an earlier date for a Hebrew text than the fourteenth century. Four of the most important of these writings to which we will refer are: (1) the Book of Nestor (perhaps between the sixth and ninth centuries); (2) the Milhamot HaShem by Jacob ben Reuben (1170); (3) Sepher Joseph Hamekane by Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan Official (thirteenth century); and (4) the Nizzahon Vetus (the latter part of the thirteenth century). A comparison of the quotations from Matthew in these writings with the text of Shem-Tob reveals an occasional unique textual link between them. Examples of this will be given below. For now it may be stated with some certainty that at least some portions of the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's Even Bohan pre-date the fourteenth century, being reflected sporadically in these earlier anti-Christian writings.​
Page 179:​
The preponderant weight of evidence, therefore, suggests that Shem-Tob only copied, not translated, his Matthew and that his Matthew was already in Hebrew when he got it.​

  1. It doesn't even have the short reading of "baptizing in my name." Instead, Matt 28:19-20 reads "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." It mentions nothing of baptizing at all.
Yep, that's definitely shorter than the KJV translation! It mentions nothing of the Trinitarian formula either.

The other nonsense about the Pope admitting this supposed change is not in the Catholic Encyclopedia 2 as claimed. I'm not RCC- but a lie is still a lie.

--I am quite certain about reading the baptismal formula of Matthew in the Apostolic church fathers- that lays your other claims to rest. If you haven't read those I suggest you do. I'm sure you have some excuse like oh those corrupted manuscripts of Iraneus..
I didn't bring up the mention of the "supposed change" being in the Catholic Encyclopedia 2, that was somebody else contibuting to the discussion. The comment that I wrote, in agreement with you, was:

Yes, I found several web pages which claim that the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, says "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century", but it's clearly not there (you can check here - Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/309 - Wikisource, the free online library). The web page Baptism Practice - Bible Prophecy and Truth attributes it to Britannica Encyclopedia 11TH edition, Vol 3, pages 365-366 (The Encyclopaedia Britannica : a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information : Chisholm, Hugh, 1866- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive), but it is not a direct quote, merely a summary or implication from those pages. For the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, reference it says, "Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church", but again it's not a direct quote, it's just saying that is implied on that page.​
The Britannica website's baptism page says "Although the conclusion has repeatedly been drawn from the book of Acts that a baptism in Christ’s name was current at some places during the 1st century, by the 2nd century the irreducible minimum for a valid baptism appears to have been the use of water and the invocation of the Trinity" - Baptism | Christianity.​

PS Your link to the Catholic Encyclopedia was fairly useless - try Catholic Encylopedia, Volume 2 - page 309.

I, on the other hand-prefer hearing other people's views on this.
So- who do YOU say Jesus is? My Q's to you are

1. Did the Lord Jesus have a living pre-existence in heaven before He became flesh? If so?..
Yes, of course. The whole universe was made through him (Colossians 1:16).

2. Who was He?
Jesus said that he was the Son of God (John 10:36). Demons said that he was the Son of God (Matthew 8:29). God audibly spoke saying that Jesus was His Son (Matthew 3:17, 17:5).

3. Was Jesus a created angel before His earthly visit?
He existed before the physical universe was created, so he had to have been a spirit being. He existed "in the form of God" (Philippians 2:6). He created the angels too (Colossians 1:16). He was a spirit being before God changed him to be a human being.

4. Was Jesus a merely a plan or an idea?
No, he was a living being - God's only begotten Son (1 John 4:9).

5 While on earth was Jesus a only human just like you and me or perhaps more "perfect" like Adam?
He was a perfect man, like Adam (having God's Holy Spirit as a father, so that he did not inherit the sinful human nature from fallen mankind).
 

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
15,794
5,939
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It 'clearly' is not!
It clearly is.

Gen 1:26 God said, "Let US make man in OUR image".

From the CYB Statement of Faith: "We believe that God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe. We attest that God has eternally existed in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God. (Genesis 1:1, 26-27, Genesis 3:22, Deuteronomy 6:4, Psalm 90:2, John 1:1, John 10:30, Romans 3:30, II Corinthians 13:14, I Peter 1:2)"
 
Last edited:

PS95

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2024
2,714
1,825
113
Eastern Shore
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, I've never studied with them.
Interesting..
What Shem Tob wrote was written in the 1300s, but he included a copy of the Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel which was written earlier. George Howard writes (from page 160 of The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text):

Although the Hebrew Matthew of Shem-Tob is the earliest complete Hebrew text of the Gospel known, earlier Jewish and anti-Christian writings quote Matthew in Hebrew suggesting the possibility of an earlier date for a Hebrew text than the fourteenth century. Four of the most important of these writings to which we will refer are: (1) the Book of Nestor (perhaps between the sixth and ninth centuries); (2) the Milhamot HaShem by Jacob ben Reuben (1170); (3) Sepher Joseph Hamekane by Rabbi Joseph ben Nathan Official (thirteenth century); and (4) the Nizzahon Vetus (the latter part of the thirteenth century). A comparison of the quotations from Matthew in these writings with the text of Shem-Tob reveals an occasional unique textual link between them. Examples of this will be given below. For now it may be stated with some certainty that at least some portions of the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's Even Bohan pre-date the fourteenth century, being reflected sporadically in these earlier anti-Christian writings.​
Page 179:​
The preponderant weight of evidence, therefore, suggests that Shem-Tob only copied, not translated, his Matthew and that his Matthew was already in Hebrew when he got it.​
Shem Tob was an antichrist who actively argued against Jesus being the Messiah.
This is who you hang your hat on? --All the while you ignore the proof I have given you already that the baptism formula was in various MUCH earlier Christian works such as Didache, the Apostolic Church Fathers- all very much pre-Nicaea and the scriptures themselves I've given you.
I think that it's important to look at the mounds of evidence against your notion without a strand of preconceived bias. That's not what you're doing.


Yep, that's definitely shorter than the KJV translation! It mentions nothing of the Trinitarian formula either.
Talk about missing my point! lol
I didn't bring up the mention of the "supposed change" being in the Catholic Encyclopedia 2, that was somebody else contibuting to the discussion. The comment that I wrote, in agreement with you, was:

Yes, I found several web pages which claim that the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, says "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century", but it's clearly not there (you can check here - Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/309 - Wikisource, the free online library). The web page Baptism Practice - Bible Prophecy and Truth attributes it to Britannica Encyclopedia 11TH edition, Vol 3, pages 365-366 (The Encyclopaedia Britannica : a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information : Chisholm, Hugh, 1866- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive), but it is not a direct quote, merely a summary or implication from those pages. For the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, reference it says, "Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church", but again it's not a direct quote, it's just saying that is implied on that page.​
The Britannica website's baptism page says "Although the conclusion has repeatedly been drawn from the book of Acts that a baptism in Christ’s name was current at some places during the 1st century, by the 2nd century the irreducible minimum for a valid baptism appears to have been the use of water and the invocation of the Trinity" - Baptism | Christianity.​

PS Your link to the Catholic Encyclopedia was fairly useless - try Catholic Encylopedia, Volume 2 - page 309.
Ok- so you wrote a lot again and yet this Catholic accusation is worthless - Agreed.
Yes, of course. The whole universe was made through him (Colossians 1:16).
Prepositions are a funny thing. Ro 11:36- speaks of the Father and Col 1:16- does not say or mean- through.
Jesus said that he was the Son of God (John 10:36). Demons said that he was the Son of God (Matthew 8:29). God audibly spoke saying that Jesus was His Son (Matthew 3:17, 17:5).
We agree- Jesus is God's Son.
He existed before the physical universe was created, so he had to have been a spirit being. He existed "in the form of God" (Philippians 2:6). He created the angels too (Colossians 1:16). He was a spirit being before God changed him to be a human being.
Is this spirit being a creature?
No, he was a living being - God's only begotten Son (1 John 4:9).
Begotten- prior to coming to earth? As in created?
Or there- in the beginning before all time? aka in eternity?
He was a perfect man, like Adam (having God's Holy Spirit as a father, so that he did not inherit the sinful human nature from fallen mankind).
A man just like- Adam-- who was created from the dust of the earth?- --
OR did Jesus testify differently-- saying that He came down from heaven? Jo 6:38
and became flesh.. John 1:14

Given your definitions I would say that you do not worship the Lord Jesus. Would that be correct?
 

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
2,003
541
113
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
It clearly is.

Gen 1:26 God said, "Let US make man in OUR image".
That verse does not support or prove the Trinity doctrine. It certainly does not "clearly teach the Trinity"!

The Bible clearly states that God's Son, Jesus, created everything - Colossians 1:16 WEB:

(16) For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.​

and Genesis 1:26 effectively says that Jesus performed the creation on God's instruction - God is talking to His Son.

Even Trinity believers don't treat Genesis 1:26 as "clearly teaching the Trinity", e.g. The Cambridge Bible Notes says:

i. Until recently, the traditional Christian interpretation has seen in the 1st pers. plur. a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The requirements of a sound historical exegesis render this view untenable: for it would read into the Book of Genesis the religious teaching which is based upon the Revelation of the New Testament.​

vi. It was the old Jewish explanation that God is here addressing the inhabitants of heaven. In the thought of the devout Israelite, God was One, but not isolated. He was surrounded by the heavenly host (1Ki_22:19); attended by the Seraphim (Isa_6:1-6); holding His court with “the sons of God” (Job_1:6; Job_2:1). We are told in a poetical account of the Creation, that when the foundations of the earth were laid, “all the sons of God shouted for joy,” Job_38:7 (cf. Psa_29:1; Psa_89:7; Psa_103:19-22). It is claimed that, at the climax of the work of Creation, when man is about to be formed, the Almighty admits into the confidence of his Divine Purpose the angelic beings whose nature, in part, man will be privileged to share (Psa_8:4-5, cf. Heb_2:7). At the risk of appearing fanciful, we may remind the reader that the birth of the Second Adam was announced by “the angel,” and “there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God” (Luk_2:13)​

and:
Note on the Jewish Interpretation of Gen_1:26​
(a) Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, “And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness.”​
(b) Pesiḳta 34a (ed. Buber), “God took counsel with the ministering angels, and said unto them, Let us make, &c.”​
(c) Philo (i. 556, ed. Mangey), “The Father of the Universe discourses to His own Hosts” (ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν).​
(d) Rashi, Commentary.​
Humilitatem Sancti illius Benedicti hinc discimus, quoniam homo ad similitudinem angelorum creatus fuit et illi erga eum invidia incitati fuerunt, idcirco Deus cum illis consultavit.… Etiamsi angeli non opem tulerint ei Deo in illius creatione … non omittit tamen Scriptura, quominus doceat morem hominum modumque humilitatis, ut nimirum is, qui major est, consultet et facultatem impetret a minore, quod si scripsisset Moses faciam hominem, non docuisset nos, quod Deus locutus sit cum domo judicii sui; sed cum seipso; responsionem vero Epicuraeis opponendam scripsit Moses in latere ejus, “et creavit,” inquiens, hominem; non vero scripsit; “et creaverunt.”​
Ed. Breithaupt, i. pp. 15, 17.​
[Which translates to:
We learn the humility of that Saint Benedict from this, since man was created in the likeness of the angels and they were moved with envy towards him, therefore God consulted with them.… Even if the angels did not help God in his creation… Scripture does not fail to teach the manner of men and the manner of humility, so that he who is greater may consult and obtain the faculty from the lesser, for if Moses had written, I will make man, he would not have taught us that God spoke with the house of his judgment; but with himself; but Moses wrote the answer to be opposed to the Epicureans on the side of it, “and created,” saying, man; but he did not write; “and they created."]​
 

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
15,794
5,939
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That verse does not support or prove the Trinity doctrine. It certainly does not "clearly teach the Trinity"!
It sure does! God is the ONLY Creator and He called Himself US and OUR!
The Bible clearly states that God's Son, Jesus, created everything - Colossians 1:16 WEB:

(16) For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.​
You just called Jesus God!
Genesis 1:27

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
and Genesis 1:26 effectively says that Jesus performed the creation on God's instruction - God is talking to His Son.
EVASIVE! God said US and OUR! The Creator!
Even Trinity believers don't treat Genesis 1:26 as "clearly teaching the Trinity", e.g. The Cambridge Bible Notes says:
From the CYB Statement of Faith: "We believe that God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe. We attest that God has eternally existed in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God. (Genesis 1:1, 26-27, Genesis 3:22, Deuteronomy 6:4, Psalm 90:2, John 1:1, John 10:30, Romans 3:30, II Corinthians 13:14, I Peter 1:2)"
i. Until recently, the traditional Christian interpretation has seen in the 1st pers. plur. a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The requirements of a sound historical exegesis render this view untenable: for it would read into the Book of Genesis the religious teaching which is based upon the Revelation of the New Testament.​

vi. It was the old Jewish explanation that God is here addressing the inhabitants of heaven. In the thought of the devout Israelite, God was One, but not isolated. He was surrounded by the heavenly host (1Ki_22:19); attended by the Seraphim (Isa_6:1-6); holding His court with “the sons of God” (Job_1:6; Job_2:1). We are told in a poetical account of the Creation, that when the foundations of the earth were laid, “all the sons of God shouted for joy,” Job_38:7 (cf. Psa_29:1; Psa_89:7; Psa_103:19-22). It is claimed that, at the climax of the work of Creation, when man is about to be formed, the Almighty admits into the confidence of his Divine Purpose the angelic beings whose nature, in part, man will be privileged to share (Psa_8:4-5, cf. Heb_2:7). At the risk of appearing fanciful, we may remind the reader that the birth of the Second Adam was announced by “the angel,” and “there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God” (Luk_2:13)​

and:
Note on the Jewish Interpretation of Gen_1:26​
(a) Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, “And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness.”​
(b) Pesiḳta 34a (ed. Buber), “God took counsel with the ministering angels, and said unto them, Let us make, &c.”​
(c) Philo (i. 556, ed. Mangey), “The Father of the Universe discourses to His own Hosts” (ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν).​
(d) Rashi, Commentary.​
Humilitatem Sancti illius Benedicti hinc discimus, quoniam homo ad similitudinem angelorum creatus fuit et illi erga eum invidia incitati fuerunt, idcirco Deus cum illis consultavit.… Etiamsi angeli non opem tulerint ei Deo in illius creatione … non omittit tamen Scriptura, quominus doceat morem hominum modumque humilitatis, ut nimirum is, qui major est, consultet et facultatem impetret a minore, quod si scripsisset Moses faciam hominem, non docuisset nos, quod Deus locutus sit cum domo judicii sui; sed cum seipso; responsionem vero Epicuraeis opponendam scripsit Moses in latere ejus, “et creavit,” inquiens, hominem; non vero scripsit; “et creaverunt.”​
Ed. Breithaupt, i. pp. 15, 17.​
[Which translates to:
We learn the humility of that Saint Benedict from this, since man was created in the likeness of the angels and they were moved with envy towards him, therefore God consulted with them.… Even if the angels did not help God in his creation… Scripture does not fail to teach the manner of men and the manner of humility, so that he who is greater may consult and obtain the faculty from the lesser, for if Moses had written, I will make man, he would not have taught us that God spoke with the house of his judgment; but with himself; but Moses wrote the answer to be opposed to the Epicureans on the side of it, “and created,” saying, man; but he did not write; “and they created."]​
Your smoke screen noted.
 

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
2,003
541
113
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Shem Tob was an antichrist who actively argued against Jesus being the Messiah.
This is who you hang your hat on?
No. I believe that the Hebrew version of Matthew that Shem-Tob copied is a genuine copy of the original Scripture. Shem Tob did not write the Matthew Gospel in Hebrew, he merely included a copy of it in his treatise - he was including his source, not writing it! George Howard writes in his intorduction:

He {Shem-Tob} revised his work several times - in 1385, around 1400, and even later - by adding another five books or sections to the original twelve. Most manuscripts contain either fifteen or sixteen chapters, not always arranged in the same order. Of the original books, usually the first deals with the principles of the Jewish faith, the next nine deal with passages in the Bible that were disputed by Jews and Christians, the eleventh discusses haggadic sections in the Talmud used by Christians or Jewish proselytes to Christianity, and the twelfth (sometimes thirteenth) contains the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, with polemical comments by Shem-Tob interspersed throughout the text.​

--All the while you ignore the proof I have given you already that the baptism formula was in various MUCH earlier Christian works such as ...
And you ignore the very early evidence (or proof) that the original Matthew 28:19 did not contain the Trinity addition, not to mention the Biblical evidence (in the Bible recorded mentions of baptism, the apostles never baptised according to the corrupted version of Matthew 28:19, implying that Jesus never said what is written in the corrupted Greek version of Matthew).

Prepositions are a funny thing. Ro 11:36- speaks of the Father and Col 1:16- does not say or mean- through.
In both Romans 11:36 and Colossian 1:16 the word 'through' is translated from the same Greek word dia.

Is this spirit being a creature?
A spirit being is a living being, as is a creature, but technically a creature is a breathing living being. So yes or no, but probably no. Colossians 1:15 WEB:

(15) who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.​

This could mean that Jesus is a creation of God, or that Jesus is the firstborn over all creation because he created them. He was either a creation of God or he was formed by God by some other means. Consider John 8:42 YLT:

(42) Jesus then said to them, 'If God were your father, ye were loving me, for I came forth from God, and am come; for neither have I come of myself, but He sent me;​

The Greek word that's translated as "came forth" is exerchomai, which can mean "to issue (literally or figuratively): - come-(forth, out), depart (out of), escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad" (Strong's), or "to go or come out of; to come out; to proceed, emanate" (Mounce). Perhaps Jesus came out from God himself in some way, rather than being created by God.

Begotten- prior to coming to earth? As in created?
Or there- in the beginning before all time? aka in eternity?
Jesus was in existence before the creation of the universe, because he created it.

A man just like- Adam-- who was created from the dust of the earth?- --
Very similar - Hebrews 10:5 WEB:

(5) Therefore when he comes into the world, he says, “Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire, but you prepared a body for me.​

He just had DNA from his mother, and not from a human father. But he had a fairly normal physical human body.

OR did Jesus testify differently-- saying that He came down from heaven? Jo 6:38
and became flesh.. John 1:14
Yes, of course Jesus existed before God translated him to become a human. He said so in John 8:58 UASV:

(58) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. N3​
N3: The Greek (ἐγώ εἰμι egō eimi) is “I am.” However, based on grammar and context, an alternative reading could be, “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I have been in existence.”​

Given your definitions I would say that you do not worship the Lord Jesus. Would that be correct?
No! Of course I worship my Lord and my King, just as all the angels do - Hebrews 1:6 WEB:

(6) When he again brings in the firstborn into the world he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”​

I worship my God and Father too. Romans 8:16-17 WEB:

(16) The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God;
(17) and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him.​

Romans 8:29 WEB:
(29) For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.​
Matthew 12:50 WEB:
(50) For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.”​
 
Last edited: