Why I Am a Trinitarian: Part Two

  • 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!

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,851
9,586
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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 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 7/9/2019 Evidence against Matthew 28:19 | Carey Bay Church Hall Evidence against Matthew 28:19 | Carey Bay Church Hall 4/4 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." (Lake 1979 & 2002)

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea 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. (Eusebius 1920)



[1] (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963)



[2] (Schaff-Herzog 1896-1914)



[3] (The Jerusalem Bible 1966)



[4] (Orr 1915)



[5] (Moffatt 1994)
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,799
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is absolutely no question that those are the actual words of Christ.

Quite a contrast.

Well not nearly as a conspiracy theory as you may think for the reason I already proposed. And then so many are apt to brush it off and walk away from the subject so easily without further questioning Matt 28:19b as a later scribe insertion into the text. The real conspiracy is the Trinity-biased scribes and the power behind their hands and nibs, that kept producing this err in practically all Bible translations.

Let me expand on it a bit.

Scripture only supports the baptism in Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus, his spirit only, in his name. It is cited in Luke 24:46-47; John 20:31; Romans 1:4-5; Acts 2:21, 2:38; 3:6, 4:10, 8:12, 8:16, 9:27, 9:29, 10:48, 16:31, 19:5, 19:17, 22:14-16.

There are dozens of sources pointing to the same conclusion, that Matthew 28:19b is not in the original language text and inserted into scripture later, deliberately to somehow support the Trinity.

Here are some few examples:

1. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, ‘..and the triune formula is a later addition.’

2. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, Page 295 states, “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.”

3. The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD, according to the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015.

4. The New Revised Standard Version Bible says that ‘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..”

5. The Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says “the basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in the connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matt 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” (XVI 2004)

Consequence of this fabrication: One must be repentant and baptized, bathed or immersed into Christ only, not into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The former receives the spirit of Truth, the latter does not and is not converted. One is repentant and believe they have also been crucified in their sins as Christ (who was sinless), not by a crucified Father, and his own Holy Spirit.

As Galatians 3:27 states, “..who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” We are never spiritually clothed or immersed into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! That would be nonsense!!

More source that says Matt 28:19 is a forgery.

The Roman Catholics say, "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."[1]

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 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..." [2]

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." [3]

Edmund Schlink, a Lutheran Theologian said, "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot 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."[4]

In, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, it says: "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."[5]

Wilhelm Bousset, a German Theologian said,: "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."[6]


[1] (The Catholic Encyclopedia, II 1907-1913)

[2] (New Revised Standard Version 1989)

[3] (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics 1908-1927)

[4] (Schlink 1972)

[5] (France 2009)

[6] (Bousset 1913/ 1970 English)

This is all from my Book still in work for years now....should get it done is few more years.

Check it out for yourself. So when you come up with nonsensical statements, it means that you do not want the truth about the Trinity. If you were to accept it, you would have to totally discard all your former beliefs and leave the JWs.

I have never been part of the JW's but have checked it out myself. The evidence of tampering is overwhelming. Could you explain why the Apostles were disobedient to this supposed command of the risen Christ by not baptizing in the name of 3? I recall your rationalization from another thread that Jesus = the 3 names. This is not nonsensical to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
972
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well not nearly as a conspiracy theory as you may think for the reason I already proposed. And then so many are apt to brush it off and walk away from the subject so easily without further questioning Matt 28:19b as a later scribe insertion into the text. The real conspiracy is the Trinity-biased scribes and the power behind their hands and nibs, that kept producing this err in practically all Bible translations.

Let me expand on it a bit.

Scripture only supports the baptism in Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus, his spirit only, in his name. It is cited in Luke 24:46-47; John 20:31; Romans 1:4-5; Acts 2:21, 2:38; 3:6, 4:10, 8:12, 8:16, 9:27, 9:29, 10:48, 16:31, 19:5, 19:17, 22:14-16.

There are dozens of sources pointing to the same conclusion, that Matthew 28:19b is not in the original language text and inserted into scripture later, deliberately to somehow support the Trinity.

Here are some few examples:

1. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, ‘..and the triune formula is a later addition.’

2. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, Page 295 states, “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.”

3. The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD, according to the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015.

4. The New Revised Standard Version Bible says that ‘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..”

5. The Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says “the basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in the connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matt 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” (XVI 2004)

Consequence of this fabrication: One must be repentant and baptized, bathed or immersed into Christ only, not into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The former receives the spirit of Truth, the latter does not and is not converted. One is repentant and believe they have also been crucified in their sins as Christ (who was sinless), not by a crucified Father, and his own Holy Spirit.

As Galatians 3:27 states, “..who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” We are never spiritually clothed or immersed into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! That would be nonsense!!

More source that says Matt 28:19 is a forgery.

The Roman Catholics say, "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."[1]

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 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..." [2]

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." [3]

Edmund Schlink, a Lutheran Theologian said, "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot 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."[4]

In, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, it says: "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."[5]

Wilhelm Bousset, a German Theologian said,: "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."[6]


[1] (The Catholic Encyclopedia, II 1907-1913)

[2] (New Revised Standard Version 1989)

[3] (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics 1908-1927)

[4] (Schlink 1972)

[5] (France 2009)

[6] (Bousset 1913/ 1970 English)

This is all from my Book still in work for years now....should get it done is few more years.

I wonder if we are talking past each other, my friend. I totally agree that the triune formulation for the baptismal rite was a second century modification, not in vogue in the first century. Your quoted sources all support this (except for #3, which is irrelevant to our issue, and #5, which is pure speculation by Ratzinger, who thinks every good thing comes out of Rome -- and in context, he is not admitting a forgery anyway). But the question under consideration is not whether the early Church changed the formula for performing baptisms; the question is, were the original words of Matthew 28:19 changed by later copyists, or was the longer version in the original?

I believe the longer version was in the original. Matthew's quote of the Great Commission differed in its triune command from other contemporaneous traditions, and was largely ignored by first century baptizers for that reason. Those who actually heard Christ's parting words heard them differently than Matthew recorded them a quarter century after the fact -- and followed their own memory. Certainly Matthew's words were seized upon by second century baptizers (as per the Didache chapter 7) -- and, of course, by later trinitarians who thought it offered support for their theory. But again, that's not the question I am addressing.

The clincher for me is that we have not a single ancient source manuscript with a non-triadic rendition. I have to assume that hundreds of copies of Matthew's gospel had found their way around the Mediterranean world by late first century. None of them have survived, but virtually all of them would have had to be changed if the alteration theory is correct. And I just don't see that as possible. One man couldn't do it alone. Maybe a hundred men acting in concert could give it a go -- but how could they possibly implement such a conspiracy with no internet, no telephones, no cars, nor steam powered ships? It often took months to travel from Palestine to Rome back then!
 
Last edited:

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
972
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What “other things” besides the writings of the Church Fathers have you considered?

Richard Hooker listed as his sources Scripture, Tradition, and Reason -- what in Anglicanism has come to be known as the "three-legged stool." I balance on these three as well. I look critically at each book, poem or letter of Scripture for what the writer meant and what his audience would have understood him to mean within the communities and culture of his time. I look at the early Church Fathers, the creeds, and the apologies for what they reveal about the struggles to understand Christian doctrine. And I look to the logic of various positions in deciding what makes sense. In the case of the Trinity (since this thread happens to be on that topic) my focus is largely on the intersection of Soteriology and Christology (does it make sense that Christ would need to be God in order for the apparent scheme of salvation to work?) and -- at the risk of being branded a heretic -- on the influence of philosophers (particularly Plotinus and Porphery) on the various heresies of the second and third centuries that challenged the emergent Trinitarian thinking of the time and molded it as primarily a defensive position.

But I am realizing that my approach doesn't fit well on this Forum, which is populated by sola scriptura denizens, or at least by people who think Scripture (as they read it -- rarely in the original Hebrew and Greek, more's the pity) is the inerrant word of God and the arbiter of all disputes on matters theological. On my nightstand are both the NRSV and a copy of Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, side by side. For that reason, I think I don't belong here. A more academic oriented Forum is probably better suited for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matthias

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,799
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The clincher for me is that we have not a single ancient source manuscript with a non-triadic rendition.

Here is where the value I place in linguistic analysis is subordinated to demonstrable facts (and the inductive reasoning implied in those demonstrable facts).

Could you explain why the Apostles were disobedient to this supposed command of the risen Christ by not baptizing in the name of 3?

The linguistic evidence for tampering is in the notes of the historian at the 4th century trinitarian council where 'baptize in my name' was the note, not the triad. At the end of the chapter, it is easy to change. The stronger evidence is the Apostles actions, NOT once following the triadic formula.

So, if you hold the triadic formula to be true, you must also conclude the Apostles, who martyred themselves for Christ, repeatedly disobeyed his command in this matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,851
9,586
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here is where the value I place in linguistic analysis is subordinated to demonstrable facts (and the inductive reasoning implied in those demonstrable facts).



The linguistic evidence for tampering is in the notes of the historian at the 4th century trinitarian council where 'baptize in my name' was the note, not the triad. At the end of the chapter, it is easy to change. The stronger evidence is the Apostles actions, NOT once following the triadic formula.

So, if you hold the triadic formula to be true, you must also conclude the Apostles, who martyred themselves for Christ, repeatedly disobeyed his command in this matter.
Your last statement is virtually impossible to dispute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,799
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
does it make sense that Christ would need to be God in order for the apparent scheme of salvation to work?

No. It makes nonsense that Christ would need to be God. No matter how many natures Jesus has, there was one requirement for the scheme of salvation to work, death. This means completely dead, totally dead, dead in every way per every nature, not one bit of life in any manner, shape or form. Because the penalty for sin is not partial death along the lines of dual natures, etc.

This is why God cannot be incarnated for this role, he is eternal. The role of the suffering servant is the role of paying substitutionary sacrifice of death. The ultimate hero is the one who sacrifices his life - regardless of his nature - to save others. And in this regard, not God but the man Jesus is the hero of heroes.

But I am realizing that my approach doesn't fit well on this Forum, which is populated by sola scriptura denizens, or at least by people who think Scripture (as they read it -- rarely in the original Hebrew and Greek, more's the pity) is the inerrant word of God and the arbiter of all disputes on matters theological.

Beyond incorporating definition, logic and language usage, what do you suppose is a better standard to evaluate theological matters than Scripture?

And for the record, I think you belong here. I enjoy your posts more than most. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,799
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
James Orr, a Scottish Presbyterian Minister said, Under the title, "Baptism," "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."[4]

It's an amazing display of cognitive dissonance to observe trinitarians side step the importance of the trinity (word and doctrine) missing from Scripture. To an objective mind, its absence is definitive.

To a trinitarian mind, they look elsewhere for 'support' for a doctrine Jesus did not teach, is found nowhere in Scripture and violates Mark 7:13, e.g., church councils, traditions, writings other than the Apostles. Most fun of all is the tortured logic they impose on the interpretation of Biblical authors, such as the passionate claim Gen 1 and John 1 undeniably support their doctrine. So, I am very interested in @RedFan's invoking a better standard to evaluate theological matters than Scripture - the writings of prophets who God told them what to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
972
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To a trinitarian mind, they look elsewhere for 'support' for a doctrine Jesus did not teach

Absolutely true. (Nor, for example, did Jesus teach "justification through faith alone" as Paul taught it -- nor lots of other things taught elsewhere in the NT.)

is found nowhere in Scripture

It's certainly not explicit, but one can find traces . . . (admittedly, both for and against).


I don't agree that the Trinity (three hypostases in one God) is the type of thing Mark had in mind when he wrote this.

For starters, "voiding" (ἀκυροῦντες) the "word of God" (λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ) as that phrase was used and intended by the author of Mark's gospel would require contradicting the Old Testament, not the New. If we were sitting at his writing desk circa 55-65 C.E. as he penned that phrase "word of God" and asked him what he meant, surely he would say:

"Why, the Hebrew Scriptures, of course!"
"Not the gospels according to Matthew, Luke and John, brother?"
"What are those?"
"Not the letters of Paul?"
"What's wrong with you guys? I'm reconstructing a speech Jesus made to the Pharisees long before Paul ever wrote anything!"

And when we look through the Law and the Prophets at all of the dozens of "God is One" passages and references, Trinitarians will be quick to agree that there is one God -- so the debate must be over whether "God is One" connotes something more than a mere numerical count of deities, requiring consideration of the concept of "oneness" as understood by the OT writers. It isn't easy to do a lot of exegesis on "echud" here, and mine its meaning (unity? singularity? uniqueness? all three?) as understood then, not now. I used to think Philo could be a short cut here, but I've given up on that. You and I could spend weeks on this! (Who knows, we might even decide that Plotinus was right when claiming that the One cannot be understood through discursive reasoning!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,799
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't agree that the Trinity (three hypostases in one God) is the type of thing Mark had in mind when he wrote this.
Well, that is a gigantic reach. To paraphrase Scalia, the Scriptures say what they say and they don't say what they don't say. Going beyond the protective word of God in ANY way goes against Mark 7:13, including most especially rationalizations to violate the 1C.

Trinitarians will be quick to agree that there is one God -- so the debate must be over whether "God is One" connotes something more than a mere numerical count of deities, requiring consideration of the concept of "oneness" as understood by the OT writers.

There you go again! Inventing concepts not in Scripture to fit your doctrine. "Oneness" is not a means by which Jews who reject the trinity to this day, embrace the trinity. Remember, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, born under the law and there is no evidence he ever stopped being Jewish.

"Oneness" means nothing more than 'being on the same page;' it never meant multiple Beings literally being 1 Being. Consider this is why Jesus said he has a God and his God is the only true God. This is not what one would say if the trinitarian principle of "Oneness" applied.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
972
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There you go again! Inventing concepts not in Scripture to fit your doctrine. "Oneness" is not a means by which Jews who reject the trinity to this day, embrace the trinity. Remember, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, born under the law and there is no evidence he ever stopped being Jewish.

"Oneness" means nothing more than 'being on the same page;' it never meant multiple Beings literally being 1 Being. Consider this is why Jesus said he has a God and his God is the only true God. This is not what one would say this if the trinitarian principle of "Oneness" applied.

I definitely don't belong here.

Thanks to everyone who has put up with my musings.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,233
4,182
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I definitely don't belong here.

Thanks to everyone who has put up with my musings.

If you’re thoroughly convinced that you don’t belong here then you probably shouldn’t be here.

However, I think you’re wrong about that and would like to ask you to reconsider. I’ll tell you why, if you’re interested. If you’re not, then all I can do is thank you for the time you’ve invested in us, for what you’ve shared with us, and wish you well wherever life takes you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrangler

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,799
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I definitely don't belong here.

Thanks to everyone who has put up with my musings.
Others have posted about Oneness on this forum. Perhaps your keen intellect has attracted a different sort? :)

I think you do belong here and like Matthias said, if you really feel you do not belong here, I am grateful for the you’ve invested in us, for what you’ve shared with us, and wish you well wherever life takes you. Love you, brother!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matthias

The Learner

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2022
3,589
919
113
67
Brighton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, that is a gigantic reach. To paraphrase Scalia, the Scriptures say what they say and they don't say what they don't say. Going beyond the protective word of God in ANY way goes against Mark 7:13, including most especially rationalizations to violate the 1C.



There you go again! Inventing concepts not in Scripture to fit your doctrine. "Oneness" is not a means by which Jews who reject the trinity to this day, embrace the trinity. Remember, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, born under the law and there is no evidence he ever stopped being Jewish.

"Oneness" means nothing more than 'being on the same page;' it never meant multiple Beings literally being 1 Being. Consider this is why Jesus said he has a God and his God is the only true God. This is not what one would say if the trinitarian principle of "Oneness" applied.

Here is an outline of where the Bible Teaches the Trinity.
https://www.calvarychapelboston.com/Biblical Basis Trinity Bowman.pdf