1. 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!

Featured The One True Almighty God IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit=The One True Almighty God!!

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by GISMYS_7, Jul 7, 2019.

  1. atpollard

    atpollard Active Member

    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    122
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    That was quite an imaginative piece of eisegetical fiction; you should have just stopped at challenging the authenticity of Matthew 28:19b as part of the autograph of Matthew.
     
  2. 101G

    101G Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,332
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    you have provided no evidence at all. but to show you your error, the person in John 1:3 and Isaiah 44:24 is the same person, who holds both titles "LORD"/Father and "Lord"/Son. for the one whom you and many say is the Father, the title is "LORD" and is a separate person from the "Son" who is "Lord", the bible disagree with you all, and here's why. listen,
    Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward".

    here clearly in Deuteronomy 10:17 Moses Pen down what God almighty himself spell out for all to see that he is "LORD" all caps, and "Lord" only the "L" is capitalize. so don't tell me about your evidence, the bible is the evidence. and here in Deuteronomy 10:17, God himself closes that case for us without a doubt. the apostle Thomas was very clear, John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God". as well as David, Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool".

    Diversity right in front of our EYES. now that's evidence, bible evidence. so you must deal with that.

    for the "LORD" all cap is the Holy Spirit without flesh, without bone, and without blood. Title "Father".
    the "Lord" cap "L" only is the Holy Spirit SHARED and G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') in flesh as a man, with flesh, with bone, and with blood. title "Son".

    we suggest you examine the evidence at Deuteronomy 10:17.

    PICJAG.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  3. APAK

    APAK Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Well hello atpollard...

    Very funny to you although not me. My reality is your fiction, so be it and so continue to amuse yourself!

    There are three major reasons why the Trinity formula was added into and replaced the 'in my name' expression in the earliest Greek or Aramaic manuscripts of Matt 28:19b.

    1. The Romanists themselves, that created their religion as a compromise with pagan thought and beliefs and holy scripture. They wanted their religion to be the most dominant, 'powerful' and popular.
    2. The earliest unholy doctrines incorporated into the RCC religion concerned death only. Prayers to the dead and the death and crucifixion of Christ on the cross. These were incorporated at least unofficially before 300 AD in the 3rd century.
    3. Monks or Latin scribes wrote many notes along side their translations on its pages and one of these side notes concerned the newly popular 4th century Trinity formula. These side notes eventually became the new scripture of Matt 28:19b.

    The first noted writer of a Trinity formula thought was around 200 AD by Tertullian - about 'wearing' the sign of the cross. St. Cyril of Jerusalem around 350 AD wrote a piece: to not be ashamed and always confess the death of Christ of the cross and to display this image. Matt 28:19b was already altered by his day. Ans also before Athanasus of Alexandria around 300 AD wrote about using the sign of the cross or the Trinity formula to drive out demons.

    Here are a few sources to consider:

    Oh heck let me just source an individual other than myself and show you his contents..saves me time...there are many more sources...

    A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
    by Clinton D. Willis, [email protected]

    Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51
    He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
    "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."

    New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
    "Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

    The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
    As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

    Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
    "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

    The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
    "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

    Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
    "The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."



    ....continued... so see next post...APAK
     
  4. APAK

    APAK Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    next post on same subject..

    Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:

    "The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

    The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

    "Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.

    The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

    "It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:

    "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

    James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

    In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."

    Tom Harpur:

    Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

    The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:

    Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

    ..decided on one more set of sources,,,see next and final post @atpollard and @Enoch111 ,Peace APAK
     
  5. APAK

    APAK Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    last post of the subject???....

    Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:

    By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."

    The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:

    The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.

    According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.

    The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."

    No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.

    But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.

    Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.

    Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."

    Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.

    "1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."

    The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

    The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."

    "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:

    Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

    Peace brothers..love is always in the air...APAK
     
  6. GISMYS_7

    GISMYS_7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    384
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    LOL!!! Who reads a post that long??? State your point in 100 words or less!!! less is best!!! Tweak!
     
    APAK likes this.
  7. atpollard

    atpollard Active Member

    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    122
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    We seem to have some sort of miscommunication happening. I acknowledged that the claim that the trinity formula was not original to Matthew 28:19 may have some merit (whether or not it was part of the original autograph written by Matthew is a reasonable question). What I was casting serious doubt upon was your claim that Scripture does not teach that the Son and Holy Spirit are also distinct "persons" of a triune "Godhead". You seemed to claim that the Father and Spirit were synonymous, while the Son was just a man (not God). Even if the trinity formula of Matthew 28 is a later addition, your interpretation of that addition is not supported by the rest of scripture.
     
  8. APAK

    APAK Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Right, I understand your post now...

    And yes we definitely have a difference in this subject.

    For example, the Holy Spirit is the Father, YHWH, and not an extra Spirit roaming around the ether, as another person. It is his own composition and energy that communicates into this world. It sometimes acts as his senses if you will, and therefore is sometimes personified. However, it must be understood that it is God who is the only person and his live composition and power, as his attribute, is called his Spirit.

    Scripture supports this view and not the Trinity view...

    Bless you,

    APAK
     
  9. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,423
    Likes Received:
    5,298
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    So now the Spirit is the Father. Another poster says that the Son is the Father. Pretty soon someone will come along and say that the Spirit is the Son, or the Son is the Spirit, or the Son is both the Father and the Spirit, etc.

    And none of you guys can simply believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are THREE DISTINCT DIVINE PERSONS within the Godhead, yet there is only ONE GOD. Amazing, how so many choose to be deceived by Satan. Amazing how so many fail to understand the Mystery of God and Christ (not meant to be grasped *rationally* by fallible and sinful mortals).
     
  10. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,423
    Likes Received:
    5,298
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    I would suggest that if one cannot state a point in 20 words or less, they are simply obfuscating.
     
    GISMYS_7 likes this.
  11. APAK

    APAK Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    My belief harmonizes with YHWH, the Father and Spirit of creation and of believers in the OT and with the same YHWH, the Father and Spirit in Jesus Christ, and all believers of the NT. It is called Monotheism. YHWH is the Father, with his Holy Spirit, and his Son with his own spirit united with his Father's Spirit. And finally believers, in YHWH's Spirit through the spirit that represents Christ and the Truth.

    I do not know what yours might be called. NT Roman Catholic -Greco - Pagan - Triotheism? A religion that would be foreign to both the OT folks and definitely Christ.

    Great Day

    APAK
     
  12. JohnPaul

    JohnPaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    519
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    This is how I know it, God the Father, Jesus Christ his only begotten son and the Holy Spirit in which we all receive from God the father and Jesus Christ his only begotten son.
     
  13. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,423
    Likes Received:
    5,298
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Right. Just put the RCC in the picture and you've got it all covered.

    However, Christian Monotheism included the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in th Godhead, and I already showed you that Mt 28:19 is genuine. So you have A FAKE MONOTHEISM -- just like the Muslims.
     
  14. JohnPaul

    JohnPaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    519
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The Muslims are pagan worshipers without even knowing it.
     
  15. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,423
    Likes Received:
    5,298
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Correct. But those who deny the Trinity are on a par with them.

    The Quran rejects the deity of Christ as well as the Trinity and calls Christians and Jews infidels fit for Hell.
     
  16. JohnPaul

    JohnPaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    519
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I do not deny the Holy Trinity.

    They are moon worshippers the whole of Mecca had nothing but pagan idols, even the word allah is a pagan God.
     
  17. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    546
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Has he owned up to being a modalist?
     
  18. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    546
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    APAK,

    This verse and others in the NT do not agree with your statement that Jesus 'has a God'.

    God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity:

    (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24);

    (2) Omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17);

    (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13);

    (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8; Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18);

    (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8);

    (6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42) (taken from Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?)

    Oz
     
  19. OzSpen

    OzSpen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    546
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Nice try, but that's not what these two verses teach. Isaiah 44:24 (ESV) states:

    'Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
    who formed you from the womb:
    “I am the Lord, who made all things,
    who alone stretched out the heavens,
    who spread out the earth by myself....

    According to Isa 47:4 (ESV), ‘Our Redeemer—the Lord of hosts is his name—is the Holy One of Israel’. The Lord of hosts is YHWH'.

    How you get John 1:3 to agree with Isa 44:24 seems to be Scripture twisting for your own agenda.
     
  20. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,423
    Likes Received:
    5,298
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    No one owns up to anything. Just check his posts.
     
Loading...