Matt 28:19? Article – What do you think?

[sscott]

“Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name''

Matthew 28:19 as Quoted by Eusebius Pamphili (~260 – 340 A.D.)

[Quotation found in his “Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine,” Chapter XVI, (335 A.D.), in “The Church History of Eusebius”, Book III, Chapter V (324 A.D.). in his Demonstratio Evangelica Book III, Chapter 6 (318 A.D.), in his Theophania, etc. (contexts in Appendix 1).

From earlier manuscripts, Eusebius Pamphilus quoted Matthew 28:19 in his writings without any trinitarian formula (to see other studies done by renown scholars).

Genuine ancient manuscripts did read in Mt. 28:19 as follows (see the original consistency in the use of the first person as underlined):

“Mt. 28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt. 28:19: Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name:
Mt. 28:20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

And not as we have it altered now in all the latter Bible versions:

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.

That altered commandment, as we have it printed now, was never fulfilled by any of the Apostles, because it was not the original order given to them by Jesus Christ. We can easily see it, if we read by ourselves the book of Acts (and/or all books of the New Testament). This truth can only be seen by those who have “eyes to see and ears to ear”, not by those which have been already blinded (cauterized) by the traditions of men. The Word of God needs to be our own and our only norm of belief and practice, not doctrines or dogmas made by men, neither men’s religions or writings. If we compare the original and trustworthy Scriptures of the Bible as originally revealed by God, with church history and writings of men, we can see the abyss of difference, and then we can decide if we are going to believe in God’s Word or in men’s opinions (history in Appendix 2, quotations in Appendix 3).

Notoriously, Brian Hoeck reports that more recently, at least two New Testament ancient texts have been found that make no mention of any trinitarian formula in Mt. 28:19:

“Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place.” (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636).

And:

“Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.” (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's, Evan Bohan).

Ethelbert W. Bullinger states: “…there is one great difficulty with regard to the [trinitarian] words [in Mt. 28:19, as we have them in our versions now]: …that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism * was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus. “It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text. As to the Greek MSS, there are none beyond the fourth Century [Note: And of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus—BOTH CORRUPT. All other known Greek MSS are from 5th Century and upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words. It looks… as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa [possibly Alexandria, Alexander’s and Athanasius’ headquarters, see Appendix 3]; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS at their disposal” (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp. 47-49).

Fredrick C. Conybeare notes that, “it may be remarked that in the oldest Syriac MS the folio which contained the end of Matthew has disappeared” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 275), and that “in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew”… “Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long Commentaries on the Psalms, Commentaries on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, …in his famous History of the Church, and in his Panegyric of the Emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you”… I have collected all these passages in the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901, except one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine”.

Conybeare continues: “Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words “in my name”. It is evident that this [“in My name”] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the “in My name” reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice. The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of [both] baptism or of the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' [in Matthew 28:19]” (Hibbert Journal, 1902).

The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states that Mt 28:19 “is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view [trinitarian formula]. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism… The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent… the traditional [trinitarian] text was brought about by the [trinitarian baptismal] influence working on the Eusebian [Gospel of Matthew, which originally stated “in My name”] text”.

Martineau in his “Seat of Authority” Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 515 writes: “The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations, betrayed itself by speaking in the trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and
not the evangelist, much less the founder himself.” Hoeck asks, “How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come?” Fred Conybeare notes, “In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to [the nowadays forged] Matthew 28:19 is once cited–but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows–'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' ” (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287). But even this may be a forgery not produced by Theodotus, but by Clement himself, as Dr. P. M. Barnard, who collected the N. T. citations of Clement in a volume of the Cambridge Texts and Studies suggests. For other spurious quotations see Appendix 3.

Regarding baptism*, there is no record in the New Testament that any baptism using a trinitarian command was ever carried out by the Apostles. They always used the name of Jesus Christ, but never any trinitarian formula. The Apostles were obedient to the real order in Matthew 28:19 as originally given by their Lord and Master Jesus Christ, before his ascension to heaven. The following verses show the truth of what the Apostles did:

“Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

“For as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord *. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts 10:48).

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

The word trinity or its formula was not present in the original manuscripts of the Bible. Contrary to that Trinitarian formula, a cross validation even of the words of Jesus Christ at that very moment, sets for us to see, if we want to, the truth of what he really have had said:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).

The same Luke gave us the most detailed account of Jesus’ last words before his ascent to heaven in the book of Acts:

“…unto the apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen [including Jude, the traitor apostle, present still at this moment, later killing himself]… he [Jesus] shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days… being [Jesus] assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with holy spirit not many days hence… ye shall receive power, after that the holy spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up…” (Acts 1:2b-5, 8-9a).

Jesus never declared, “you will be witnesses of the holy trinity”, but rather “ye shall be witnesses unto me”.

By simple scripture build up we can see complementary information given by Mark:

“And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized [with holy spirit (Acts 1:5)] shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover [all these are “manifestations of the spirit” within us (1 Cor. Ch. 12 to Ch. 14)]. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mk 16:15-20).

Jesus never said “in the name of the trinity you will cast demons”, rather “In my name shall they cast out devils [Gk. daimonia]”

The conclusions of all writings of the Apostle John are also significant:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn 20:30-31).

“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1Jn 5:13).

John words are: “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. John never said that his writings were written “that we might believe that Jesus is God the Son”, as religion, twisting interpretations of the very same writings of John and of the rest of the scriptures, desire us to believe, trying to prevent that more people, with all their religious twisting of the truth, could be born again, and have life through Jesus’ name, and to know that we have eternal life. John wrote many comparisons regarding who Christ is, he is: the word (1:1), the water (7:37), the bread (6:35), the light (8:12), the good shepherd (10:11), the door (10:7), the true vine (15:1), etc. Hoverer, religion misunderstood him, and adulterated the gift of holy spirit, transforming it in a third “person” of the trinity, and also transformed Jesus “the man – man’s redeemer”, “the advocate and the mediator of men” into an unreachable God, and substituted the spiritual baptism with the outdated water baptism, which was likened to a pagan religious “initiation”, adding to it the abomination of the heathen mysteries of the trinity, and making its followers to believe that the dead still alive, allowing demons to impersonate “the dead”, as in catholic churches, through religious images, etc… this are only few, among other many tricks, fully supported by God’s adversary, and introduced through philosophies of men, men lacking of holy spirit, men twice dead (deceivers that indeed are going to experience the second death, as Jude verses 12 and 19 clearly manifest).

We have seen that there exists in the Bible the powerful and clear evidence, given by God, against words inserted by men (that’s why wee need to be aware and acquainted with All the Bible and not only with just “one verse”), men whose purpose is to carry out their own theology, as we can read in the last words of Paul, John, Peter and Jude (Appendix 6). Even if under a “sincere principle of unity”, as Constantine desired, we know that “sincerity is no guarantee for truth”. It is our responsibility to read the Bible carefully to see the written truth and not being guided by doctrines designed by men to fulfill their private political agendas (historic example in Appendix 2). This work is aimed for those who seek and ask (Lk. 11:9-13).

After the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), quotations of works attributed to Eusebius Pamphilus, done by Athanasius and others, include the trinitarian formula. That was “a retouch”, showing the political and religious impact of the Nicene decision.

This was a painful decision that moved towards the mishandling and tampering of God’s Word, which ended in thousands of born again Christians being discriminated and/or martyred (in Appendix 3, decisions made by Theodosius I and by the Theophilus popes).

The Greek Christian Justin Martyr, who wrote in the middle of the second century, never q
uoted “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” nor did Aphraates (Aphrahat The Persian Sage) in the early fourth century, neither the great theologian Origen, nor Hermas the shepherd. This manifests that Eusebius in his Greek and Latin texts, Justin in his Greek texts, and Aphrahat in his Syriac texts, must have had earlier manuscripts without the added words (Appendix 1).

It was not difficult for Fourth Century scribes after the Nicene order to destroy genuine manuscripts and to retain the forged ones, changing the words “in my name” to “in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost”, since the Godhead was gradually taking on a triune nature in their political-religious environment (Appendix 5 shows that as late as in 1520 A. D., catholic hands forged a MS to tamper also 1 John 5:7-8 for Erasmus’s “Textus Receptus”, 3rd edition, damning the KJV even more by including it. If this forgery of 1 John 5:7-8 is a well known fact, why we don’t help everybody to see that a similar forgery was done earlier to tamper with Matthew 28:19, and with any other secular writing (at least, that was the evident attempt of the Athanasians, as we can see in the forged Ignatian epistles, in the forgery upon the anonymous Didache and upon many other documents (Appendix 3). Only by the grace of God it was left for us to see the truth in Mt. 28:19 from the original writings of Origen, Eusebius, Justin, Aphrahat, Hermas, and others still to discover)).

That the forgery of Biblical texts and of other earlier Christian writers was “the norm” with the full authorization of the Popes and of all catholic theologians of that time (and of to-day) can be seen in written words of the forgers themselves, words that have reached us, even in the midst of a strict and heinous “catholic censorship”, see for example Rufinus (who at the conclusion of his version of Origen’s Commentary on Romans boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”), by Jerome (who in his Preface to The Four Gospels of his Vulgate NT wrote, “Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will …call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books… which enable me to bear the odium-in the first place, [is that] the command is given by you [Pope Damasus, A.D. 383]”), by Basil “the Great” of Caesarea (that writes in his Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XXVIII “…passages… viewed with suspicion… really have been altered… fact of their having been tampered with… Those however which I [Basil] have quoted at length…”), and by many others, considered “saints” by the catholic church (Appendix 3).

* Additional Note Regarding Water Baptism: Water baptism is no longer necessary, since we now have the true baptism, which is the spiritual baptism in holy spirit, also called, “the receiving of power from on high” (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8), and “the gift of God” (Acts 2:38), and also, “the promise of our Father” (Acts 1:4). Christ told his disciples: “Acts 1:5: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” John the Baptist recognized that this spiritual baptism would be provided by Christ (Mt. 3:11) as did Priscilla and Aquila. Today (as Apollos or as Philip did then), many people still acknowledge the baptism of John (Acts 18:25) as the only baptism. However, now we need to expound unto them “the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26),” in the same way as Paul did, proclaiming the new birth, which is being born again of holy spirit, and not of water submersion or ablutions. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledged this simple truth: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:16). This greatly upset Cyprian (and others of his kind to-day), because water was no longer needed, neither it has ever been needed any trinitarian formula. Cyprian’s doctrines were just the philosophies of men’s imaginations (Appendix 3). Baptism today is to be born again, receiving holy spirit in the name of Christ Jesus, just as the Apostle Paul taught and performed, no longer using water, but through the spiritual new birth, the receiving of salvation, which is “Christ in us, the hope of the glory” (Col. 1:27).

—————

Other word not present in older texts, and already corrected in almost all recent versions, can be found in:

1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

The word “God” still appears in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives.

The proper translation should read:

1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Great is the Mystery of godliness, which [Mystery] was manifested in the flesh!

The Revised Version of 1885 gives “He who” in the text, and is rightly stated in the margin, “The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”.

Some ancient authorities read “which”. This is our belief. We believe that the original word was ho (0), “which”, in the neuter form, to agree with the word musterion, which is also neuter. Then, a scribe who, not understanding why it was in neuter, added an “S,” thus turning ho into hos (0ς), which made it masculine, “who”, or “He who”, though with that change is thus made more obscure. Finally, some later scribe put a little mark in the “0,” thus making it into Th (θ), and making the two letters ThS (θς), an abbreviation of the word Theos (θεος), God (The “Englishman’s Greek New Testament” of Thomas Newberry (1877), and its revised form done by George Ricker Berry (1897) even expand the abbreviation to make it be as θεος without the support of the evidence of all manuscripts, even when they quote in a footnote: “0ς , “who”, appears in Griesbach 1805, Lachmann 1842-50, Tischendorf 8th ed. 1865-72, Tregelles 1857-72, Alford 1862-71, and Wordsworth 1870”). A microscope reveals the fact that the little mark in the “0” in the Alexandrine MS (Codex A in the British Museum) is in different ink, and was evidently added by a later hand. This, we believe to be the corruption of the reading, and that originally it was simply “0,” which. The old Syriac and all the Older Latin Versions agree with this translation (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1803). “The Codex Claromontanus, Uncial 061, the Vulgate and Older Latin Manuscripts contain ho (0) rather than hos (0ς)”. D and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun 0, “which”. That the 0ς, θς, θεος reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading 0. B. M. Metzger notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεος; no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεος” (Textual Commentary, 574).

To see more Biblical details on this verse: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc2/mystery.htm

1 Tim. 3:16 is generally taken of Christ personal, but if read of the Body of Christ, which is his Church, then, in the six sentences of 1 Tim. 3:16 we have the whole truth concerning the Body of Christ that is now revealed on earth. The place occupied by the Revelation of the Mystery in 1 Tim. 3:16 (the “Mystery of Godliness”) will be best understood by the
important position it occupies in contrast with the “Mystery of Iniquity” (1 Tim 4:1-12), as discussed in the link referred (Ethelbert W. Bullinger, The Mystery, Things to Come, part IV, Dec. 1895, 2(6):102-105).

[The Greek word “0 ”is translated correctly as the word “which” in the Latin Vulgate, in the James Murdock Translation of the Syriac Peshitta and in the Douay-Rheims; is translated as “that” in the French 1910 Louis Segond, and as “it” is (and the word “is” in present tense) in the 1933 Lamsa Translation from the Peshitta; the changed “0ς” has been translated to “He who” in the Westcott-Hort Greek Critical Text, in the 1901 American Standard Version, in the New American Standard Bible, in J. B. Rotherham, in the 1949 Bible in Basic English, in The Living Oracles; “0ς” as “He” in the NET Bible, in the International Standard Version, in the Revised Standard Version, in the Revised King James Version, in the New International Version, in the Common Edition, in the Twentieth Century, in The Message, in Good News, in God’s Word, in the Portuguese Joao Ferreira de Almeida, in the Spanish Reina Valera Actualizada and LBLA; “0ς” as “who” in the Emphatic Diaglott, in the Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, as “that” (Christ) in the 1912 Weymouth translation, as “Christ” in the Contemporary English Version, in the New Living Translation, etc. None of these translations includes here the word “God”.]

On reading faithfully your Bible you can easily see that the “central mystery of the Christian faith”, is in reality the Mystery, and not “the trinity”. The Mystery revealed by God to us, the members of the body of Christ, is that when we confess Jesus Christ as our Lord, and when we believe that God raised him from the dead, then we are saved, then is Christ in us the hope of glory, then we have holy spirit within, and both Jews and Gentiles are fellow-heirs and members of the same Body of Christ, which is his Church.

The expression “God the Son” is never to be found in the Bible, nor the catholic creed expression “true God of true God”, neither “God incarnated”. However, the expression “Son of God” regarding Jesus Christ is found at least 68 times. God and Jesus Christ are one in purpose, and they want us to be one with them also:

John 17:20-23:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me”

Here the word “one” in Greek is “hen”, which is neuter, not a person, not masculine, and it is the same word “hen” translated also “one” in John 10:30, when Jesus said “I and my Father are one”, and by its context, being “one” is to be one in purpose and in will, Christ with God and we with them.

Jesus Christ stated that: “my Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28, 10:29). The Bible also states that “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3), and that “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Why don’t believe in the Bible only?

Remember that the key of our salvation is given in Rom. 10:9: “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Revised King James Version). It does not say, “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is God”.

In the book of Acts we can see time after time the same confession, that: “Jesus Christ is Lord”, as in the first preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,” and in his first preaching to the gentiles: “The word which God sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:).” Other examples can be found in Acts 4:33, 7:59, 8:16, 9:17,27,29, 11:17,20, 15:11,16, 16:31, 19:10,17, 20:21,24,35, 21:13, 28:31, and also in Acts 2:38, 3:6, 4:18, 5:40, 16:18, 1 Cor. 1:2, Philip. 2:9-11, etc. As stated before, you will never find the word trinity or any of the trinitarian formulas in the book of Acts or in any other book of the revealed Bible.

The testimony of God himself, when referring to Jesus is: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3:17, Mk. 1:11, Lk. 1:22 and 9:35), are we going to believe God Himself on this? The testimony of Jesus Christ, regarding who he is: “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Jn. 10:36), are we going to believe Jesus Christ’s testimony of who he is, as it was given by himself? On his testimony Jesus was confirming what his father had already expressed regarding who Jesus is. The testimony of John the Apostle, on giving the purpose of all his writings is: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30-31, 1 Jn. 5:13). John the Apostle is giving at the end of his book this beautiful summary, to don’t let anybody in any doubt or misunderstanding about the truth contained within everything that he wrote. God himself, and Jesus Christ, and John, and Peter, who by revelation had said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16), and the rest of the pure Biblical Scriptures, I ask, are all of them “blaspheming” because none of them says what the catholic religion says (Appendix 3), or what the Koran says (Appendix 4)? Jude Iscariot was one of the original Apostles and he betrayed Jesus Christ, Thomas Didymus was another, and he did not believed in the Word of God, until seeing. What about ourselves?

—————

Another scripture deliberately changed, and corrected to its original form by almost all recent versions and translations, as it contains the only second “trinitarian formula” that was added by pro-Nicene hands, is:

1 John 5:7-8:

7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

These verses still appear in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives.

KJV verses 7 and 8 contain words that do not appear in any of the early manuscripts. The words added begin in verse 7 with “in heaven” and goes unto “in earth” in verse 8. These words are found in only four Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension (alteration) of the Latin Vulgate (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament, N.Y.: United Bible Societies, 1971, pp. 716-717). They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies, and from there they have crept into the text (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1876).

The earlier texts read as follows:

1 John 5:7-8:

“For there are three that bear record, _ the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

_ represents that none of the added words were originally present there.

[Added words never included in: 1881 Westcott and Hort, 1889 Darby Bible, German Luther Bible (Appendix
5, version available in the e-Sword Free Software), 1901 American Standard Version, 1912 Weymouth, 1949 Bible in Basic English, New American Standard Bible, The Common Edition, The Emphatic Diaglott, Majority Text, Living Oracles, Montgomery, New International Version, Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, Revised Standard Version, Revised King James New Testament, Twentieth Century, NET Bible, World English Bible, “Reina-Valera Actualizada,” this verse even is accurate in The Vulgate, etc.]

“Including more words was an attempt of a scribe or scribes to corrupt the original text with the theology propounded by Tertullian (early third century, the first person to use the word trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, devoting a treatise to it), Cyprian (third century), Athanasius (fourth century, the main influencer in the Nicene trinity), Hieronymus (Jerome, translator of The Vulgate, fifth century), Augustine (fifth century),” etc. (their writings, Appendix 3).

These practices “for the forgiveness of sins”, or as the later form took over, when baptizing even babies, “as a signature of pertaining to “the right” church”, using water “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”, replaced the original commandment given: to provide salvation and holy spirit to everyone who believes “in the name of Jesus Christ”.

The insertion within 1 John 5:7-8 was omitted completely by the English committee in the Revised Version of 1881-1885, and by the American committee in the American Standard Version of 1901. Yet both, the American and the British Bible Societies, knowing that the ancient texts and manuscripts do not substantiate the insertion, have continued to insert the error in the newer versions of the King James Version (KJV) as genuine Scripture. To print these verses for many years after it was known not to be true, is an immoral act with Scripture, and as such, it is sin. The mystery of the trinity is within the creeds of men, not in the Word of God. Why not just simply believe the truth of God’s Word? “Religious men” wants us to worship their own human thoughts consecrated as dogmas and not the true God! However, the seekers after the truth will sooner or later discover all the mistranslations, as well as all the forgeries on which the doctrine of the trinity has been based. Thinking people will not continue following leaders in whose honesty they have no confidence, those leaders who defile the Word of God and defile themselves. To say that Jesus Christ is God the Son is idolatry. To say: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, is truth.

The student is not told that the dogma of the trinity unified the roman church by persecution, it is concealed from him that Theodosius “the Great” (see Appendix 3 to read his statement and of his sanguinary character), in the latter part of the fourth century made, by force, the trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire; and at that time, there were not enough trinitarians in the capital city of Constantinople on the first Sunday thereafter, to place, not even to one single trinitarian worshipper in each church building in the city. God’s revelation to men opens with God creating, and closes when “the Son, also himself being subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) [in Appendix 5 details on the history of the catholic insertion of trinitary words in 1 Jn. 5:7-8, words deceivingly retained today by “religious men”].

The Bible says, regarding those early (and of today) theologians, which with their personal aspirations took over the control of the “church” since its early days:

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Acts 20:29-31).

“This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain” (2 Tim. 1:15-16).

Etc… (more references can be found in Appendix 6).

By the end of the first century, the only apostolic procession was by these grievous wolves. In our search for truth, we must trust in the Scriptures themselves and not in the “church tradition” laid by grievous wolves in sheep’s clothing (Bill Powell, 1998, on his Online review of “The Names and Order of the Books of the Old Testament”, originally written by E. W. Bullinger in Things to Come in 1894, 1(6):110).

If Jesus Christ himself, or if his Apostles did not established an “official religious institution”, nor “official creed”, nor “dogmas”, nor “doctrines”, who are we to establish our own creeds, dogmas and doctrines? Or even worse, who are we to oppress and to obligate others to submit to us and to our own vain imaginations, through such creeds and dogmas? Notoriously, they are proven to be wrong when compared with the pure fountain of the living Word.

Enough is to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

This is the testimony of the Word of God regarding the invalidity of any kind of doctrines or dogmas, either from the law period or of any other of men’s imaginations in this age of grace, in this administration of the mystery revealed by God to us in his Word:

“Having abolished [Jesus Christ] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (dogmas); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Eph. 2:15).

“Blotting out [Jesus Christ] the handwriting of ordinances (dogmas) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14).

“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (dogmatidzo)? …” (Col. 2:20).

We are living today the Mystery revealed by God, the age of the grace of God!

Regarding doctrines not to be found in the original revelation of the Bible:

“He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men… ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mk. 7:6-9).

“Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein” (Heb. 13:9).

“Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (Col. 2:21-22).

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1Tim. 4:1).

God reminds us not to alter the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, all individuals or groups that have done so (willingly) are accursed (damn, reproved) according to God:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book
of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen” (Rev. 22:18-21).

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32).

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6).

[charity]

And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

What should have been passed down to us by generations of truth, was hunted, captured and silenced, killed,

These are only words and ideas offered to us, to influence or thinking, everything we receive should be offered to God, we should become accustom to allowing the spirit to work our understanding, being free of allowing ourselves to be tossed and turned by waves of mans Knowledge?
What was right yesterday can then be wrong today, showing we are free of the captivity of men, and our mind is subdued BY THE LIFE OF CHRIST.

Copy…Secret Archives of the Vatican,
You would think that the Vatican's Secret Archives would be some dumb conspiracy theory. I mean, it sounds ridiculous. The Vatican's Secret Archives. Let it roll off your tongue. Surely, we're into serious conspiracy weirdness here.
Except, of course, that there really is such a thing. And it's pretty much exactly what you think it is.

There are a lot of reasons for an organization like the Catholic Church to have Secret Archives. After all, they've been in the conspiracy business for millennia longer than Majestic-12. They've been in the disinformation business for about 18 times as long as Donald Rumsfeld has been alive. They were taking secret vows when the Masons were just a bunch of architects. And they have more to hide that Richard M. Nixon on his worst day.

The Catholic Church first officially started keeping a library around the fourth century. Formed at the height of the first great heresy craze, the contents of this library included a lot of attacks on heretical branches of Christianity and the documents and scriptures used by these heretical branches (which the Church fathers admitted to having read).

The entire contents of the pre-eighth century archives, presumably including all these fascinating heresies, mysteriously disappeared, according to the Vatican's official account of the library's history, “for reasons not entirely known.”

The library was strictly closed to the public until around the 15th century, when the church decided to open its contents for the masses. OK, not all of the contents. Starting in the fourth century, the Catholic Church, in a position of political power for the first time, had been ruthlessly suppressing what it saw as heresy:

“Theodosius is said to be the first (Roman emperor) who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned.”
Well, most of the books. After all, you would have to be pretty stupid to destroy valuable intelligence on your most hated enemies (read the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on heresy for a sense of the magnitude of enmity we're talking about here). Around the time the library first opened to the public, Pope Paul IV issued the “index of prohibited books.” Reading, possessing or distributing these books had a spiritual penalty of excommunication (i.e., condemnation to hell without appeal), and in Catholic countries, they often had civil penalties as well (of varying severity, depending on the nature of the books).

Ironically, the pope issued an order later that same year mitigating the penalties regarding violations of the Index's non-reading list, but the order was conveniently “lost” until 1909. Whoops! Guess they should've invented the Dewey decimal system while they were opening the library. This minor paperwork snafu justified 400 years of suppression and censorship, and when the modification of the order was discovered, it was ignored in favor of 400 years precedent, until the church finally lightened the order (slightly) in 1966.

While all this sounds pretty revolting to the American mindset, the church officially condones censorship even today: “Censorship of books is a supervision of the press in order to prevent any abuse of it. In this sense, every lawful authority, whose duty it is to protect its subjects from the ravages of a pernicious press, has the right of exercising censorship of books.”

Starting in the third century, the Church had expressly ordered the destruction of heretical books, but their contents were clearly referenced by the main heresy-hunters of the day, such as Irenaeus, a Father of the Church who wrote extensively about the fallacies of heresy. His texts explicitly admit he had read some of the source materials, as well as showing a great familiarity with the various beliefs of the many different heretic sects in existence at the time. The church's official history of the archives confirms it contained such materials as a resource for those designated to fight against heresy.

Thus, the existence of a secret archive became inevitable for an organization obsessed with information control. Whatever form this archive took, it indisputably dates back to the fourth century at the latest. According to the Vatican, the early secret archive contained mainly the names of believers and wealthy patrons of the church, but as noted above, it almost assuredly contained copies of heretical and banned works, information deemed too “dangerous” for the public.

[NickHassan]

Hi sscott,
You quote
“John words are: “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. John never said that his writings were written “that we might believe that Jesus is God the Son”, as religion, twisting interpretations of the very same writings of John and of the rest of the scriptures, desire us to believe, trying to prevent that more people, with all their religious twisting of the truth, could be born again, and have life through Jesus’ name, and to know that we have eternal life. John wrote many comparisons regarding who Christ is, he is: the word (1:1), the water (7:37), the bread (6:35), the light (8:12), the good shepherd (10:11), the door (10:7), the true vine (15:1), etc. Hoverer, religion misunderstood him, and adulterated the gift of holy spirit, transforming it in a third “person” of the trinity, and also transformed Jesus “the man – man’s redeemer”, “the advocate and the mediator of men” into an unreachable God, and substituted the spiritual baptism with the outdated water baptism, which was likened to a pagan religious “initiation”, adding to it the abomination of the heathen mysteries of the trinity, and making its followers to believe that the dead still alive, allowing demons to impersonate “the dead”, as in catholic churches, through religious images, etc… this are only few, among other many tricks, fully supported by God’s adversary, and introduced through philosophies of men, men lacking of holy spirit, men twice dead (deceivers that indeed are going to experience the second death, as Jude verses 12 and 19 clearly manifest).”

and
“* Additional Note Regarding Water Baptism: Water baptism is no longer necessary, since we now have the true baptism, which is the spiritual baptism in holy spirit, also called, “the receiving of power from on high” (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8), and “the gift of God” (Acts 2:38), and also, “the promise of our Father” (Acts 1:4). Christ told his disciples: “Acts 1:5: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” John the Baptist recognized that this spiritual baptism would be provided by Christ (Mt. 3:11) as did Priscilla and Aquila. Today (as Apollos or as Philip did then), many people still acknowledge the baptism of John (Acts 18:25) as the only baptism. However, now we need to expound unto them “the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26),” in the same way as Paul did, proclaiming the new birth, which is being born again of holy spirit, and not of water submersion or ablutions. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledged this simple truth: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:16). This greatly upset Cyprian (and others of his kind to-day), because water was no longer needed, neither it has ever been needed any trinitarian formula. Cyprian’s doctrines were just the philosophies of men’s imaginations (Appendix 3). Baptism today is to be born again, receiving holy spirit in the name of Christ Jesus, just as the Apostle Paul taught and performed, no longer using water, but through the spiritual new birth, the receiving of salvation, which is “Christ in us, the hope of the glory” (Col. 1:27)”.

Having argued for the retention of the original form of baptism in the Name of the Lord
your authors take on themselves to override the need for it altogether in their new gospel.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hello!

Eusebius never said that Matt 28:19 was not in the Ancient text! He simply said that the RCH changed there baptismal formula.

Matt 28:19 is “Unambiguous” and is in thousands of the ancient copys.

The following is some info on the subject.

…………………………………………………………………..

Ploughman next shifts to patristic evidence (though in the manner of Mormons, says that this was a time of “rampant apostasy”), beginning with Eusebius. He begins by quoting “the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte” as saying that “Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and 'the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19.' ” Now this would be quite helpful and astonishing, if Eusebius really did this; may we see it? Er, no:

Further inquiry has failed to pinpoint the exact compilation referred to, as Ludwig Knupfer, the Editor, has since written, “through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine.” But various authorities mention a work entitled 'Discrepancies in the Gospels,' and another work entitled 'The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.'
Well, isn't that a shame. And poor Nicholas Notovitch also lost all that stuff about Jesus being in India. It's not fair to diss his arguments on that basis! 🙂

Such is the inside story; what of the outside story? Here Ploughman thought to have unearthed gold, for he found a study by F. C. Conybeare back in 1902 declaring as follows:

Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany …in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'… Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p. 136): 'For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, “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.” It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name”.
Impressive? Not really, and this is an excellent example of why textual critics will only give ground when the internal evidence alerts their noses. Conybeare, something of a logocentric apparently, was clearly unaware that quotation methods in antiquity were rather looser than they were even in 1902. Does Matthew 28:19 seems amiss? So does Phil. 2:9, which is also “quoted” above, though not 100% “accurately,” to wit:

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…
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…
So before one gets too excited, it might be best to, say, do a comparison of how well Eusy and others do their other quotes. As it is Conybeare admits that Eusy did quote the passage “right” in three very late and “controversial” works (why they are “controversial” and how that particularly affects Matt. 28:19 is not stated, but another source claims that their authorship is disputed), which makes the evidence rather equivocal unless we beg the question of a conspiracy to begin with.

Other than Eusy, a document titled De Rebaptismate is cited, but it is not clear that it is alluding Matthew or one of the “name of Jesus” only verses, and so hardly constitutes any evidence. Origen is cited as doing this by Conybeare:

In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'in my name', struck out.
How this “suggests” any such thing is one of those Scooby Doo mysteries of liberal scholarship, but one might point out that the message to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations”, stopped at just that point, is hardly inappropos for a teacher like Origen, and surely enough served his purposes whereas the rest (whether it was Triune or not) would not necessarily have been useful. It is then noted, “In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: 'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.'”

Well, that is rather interesting, for had Elaine Pagels been around, she'd have slapped Conybeare with a wet noodle for hinting that there was any problem with quoting a Gnostic. As it is, this may or may not be another case of loose quotation. But finally we have the, er, non-evidence of Justin Martyr:

Justin…quotes a saying of Christ…as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19.
Here we are not offered the saying referenced for our own inspection, but are offered a quote where Justin used the “name of Jesus” part only — which as above makes no impact on the authenticity of Matt. 28:19.

A reader recently noted that Ploughman apparently missed some probable allusions to this text in patristic writers. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, in Chapter 2 (see here) says, Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost….”. Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, “After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”. Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.–Against the Heresy of One Noetus, “gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, “All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” and alludes to the same passage in other places as well. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, “….the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?” There are several other allusions from anonymous works which we will not include.

From here we are given the opinions of people as late as the seventh century, and a long list of opinions that the verse is a forgery, which makes it clear we are scraping barrel bottom. Indeed, these opinions take up far more space than the data offered, which tells us enough of what sort of case Ploughman actually had.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html

…………………………………………………………………………

Believe the scriptures! Jesus and the Apostles did!

[sscott]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2007,18:23)

Hello! Eusebius never said that Matt 28:19 was not in the Ancient text! He simply said that the RCH changed there baptismal formula. Matt 28:19 is “Unambiguous” and is in thousands of the ancient copys. The following is some info on the subject. ………………………………………………………………….. Ploughman next shifts to patristic evidence (though in the manner of Mormons, says that this was a time of “rampant apostasy”), beginning with Eusebius. He begins by quoting “the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte” as saying that “Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and 'the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19.' ” Now this would be quite helpful and astonishing, if Eusebius really did this; may we see it? Er, no: Further inquiry has failed to pinpoint the exact compilation referred to, as Ludwig Knupfer, the Editor, has since written, “through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine.” But various authorities mention a work entitled 'Discrepancies in the Gospels,' and another work entitled 'The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.' Well, isn't that a shame. And poor Nicholas Notovitch also lost all that stuff about Jesus being in India. It's not fair to diss his arguments on that basis! 🙂 Such is the inside story; what of the outside story? Here Ploughman thought to have unearthed gold, for he found a study by F. C. Conybeare back in 1902 declaring as follows: Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany …in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'… Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p. 136): 'For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, “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.” It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name”. Impressive? Not really, and this is an excellent example of why textual critics will only give ground when the internal evidence alerts their noses. Conybeare, something of a logocentric apparently, was clearly unaware that quotation methods in antiquity were rather looser than they were even in 1902. Does Matthew 28:19 seems amiss? So does Phil. 2:9, which is also “quoted” above, though not 100% “accurately,” to wit: 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… 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… So before one gets too excited, it might be best to, say, do a comparison of how well Eusy and others do their other quotes. As it is Conybeare admits that Eusy did quote the passage “right” in three very late and “controversial” works (why they are “controversial” and how that particularly affects Matt. 28:19 is not stated, but another source claims that their authorship is disputed), which makes the evidence rather equivocal unless we beg the question of a conspiracy to begin with. Other than Eusy, a document titled De Rebaptismate is cited, but it is not clear that it is alluding Matthew or one of the “name of Jesus” only verses, and so hardly constitutes any evidence. Origen is cited as doing this by Conybeare: In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'in my name', struck out. How this “suggests” any such thing is one of those Scooby Doo mysteries of liberal scholarship, but one might point out that the message to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations”, stopped at just that point, is hardly inappropos for a teacher like Origen, and surely enough served his purposes whereas the rest (whether it was Triune or not) would not necessarily have been useful. It is then noted, “In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: 'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.'” Well, that is rather interesting, for had Elaine Pagels been around, she'd have slapped Conybeare with a wet noodle for hinting that there was any problem with quoting a Gnostic. As it is, this may or may not be another case of loose quotation. But finally we have the, er, non-evidence of Justin Martyr: Justin…quotes a saying of Christ…as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19. Here we are not offered the saying referenced for our own inspection, but are offered a quote where Justin used the “name of Jesus” part only — which as above makes no impact on the authenticity of Matt. 28:19. A reader recently noted that Ploughman apparently missed some probable allusions to this text in patristic writers. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, in Chapter 2 (see here) says, Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost….”. Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, “After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”. Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.–Against the Heresy of One Noetus, “gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, “All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” and alludes to the same passage in other places as well. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, “….the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?” There are several other allusions from anonymous works which we will not include. From here we are given the opinions of people as late as the seventh century, and a long list of opinions that the verse is a forgery, which makes it clear we are scraping barrel bottom. Indeed, these opinions take up far more space than the data offered, which tells us enough of what sort of case Ploughman actually had. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html ………………………………………………………………………… Believe the scriptures! Jesus and the Apostles did!

If that is the “baptismal formula” then why is every instance of baptism in acts done in “Jesus Name” and not in the trinitarian formula that most churches do?

[kenrch]

Quote (sscott @ June 23 2007,17:30)

“Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name'' Matthew 28:19 as Quoted by Eusebius Pamphili (~260 – 340 A.D.) [Quotation found in his “Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine,” Chapter XVI, (335 A.D.), in “The Church History of Eusebius”, Book III, Chapter V (324 A.D.). in his Demonstratio Evangelica Book III, Chapter 6 (318 A.D.), in his Theophania, etc. (contexts in Appendix 1). From earlier manuscripts, Eusebius Pamphilus quoted Matthew 28:19 in his writings without any trinitarian formula (to see other studies done by renown scholars). Genuine ancient manuscripts did read in Mt. 28:19 as follows (see the original consistency in the use of the first person as underlined): “Mt. 28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Mt. 28:19: Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name: Mt. 28:20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” And not as we have it altered now in all the latter Bible versions: 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. That altered commandment, as we have it printed now, was never fulfilled by any of the Apostles, because it was not the original order given to them by Jesus Christ. We can easily see it, if we read by ourselves the book of Acts (and/or all books of the New Testament).  This truth can only be seen by those who have “eyes to see and ears to ear”, not by those which have been already blinded (cauterized) by the traditions of men.  The Word of God needs to be our own and our only norm of belief and practice, not doctrines or dogmas made by men, neither men’s religions or writings.  If we compare the original and trustworthy Scriptures of the Bible as originally revealed by God, with church history and writings of men, we can see the abyss of difference, and then we can decide if we are going to believe in God’s Word or in men’s opinions (history in Appendix 2, quotations in Appendix 3). Notoriously, Brian Hoeck reports that more recently, at least two New Testament ancient texts have been found that make no mention of any trinitarian formula in Mt. 28:19: “Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place.” (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636). And: “Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.” (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's, Evan Bohan). Ethelbert W. Bullinger states: “…there is one great difficulty with regard to the [trinitarian] words [in Mt. 28:19, as we have them in our versions now]: …that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism * was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus. “It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text. As to the Greek MSS, there are none beyond the fourth Century [Note: And of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus—BOTH CORRUPT.  All other known Greek MSS are from 5th Century and upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words. It looks… as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa [possibly Alexandria, Alexander’s and Athanasius’ headquarters, see Appendix 3]; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS at their disposal” (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp. 47-49). Fredrick C. Conybeare notes that, “it may be remarked that in the oldest Syriac MS the folio which contained the end of Matthew has disappeared” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 275), and that “in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew”… “Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long Commentaries on the Psalms, Commentaries on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, …in his famous History of the Church, and in his Panegyric of the Emperor Constantine.  I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you”… I have collected all these passages in the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901, except one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine”. Conybeare continues: “Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words “in my name”. It is evident that this [“in My name”] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors.  Of any other form of text [than the “in My name” reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice.  Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice. The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise.  But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices.  The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of [both] baptism or of the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' [in Matthew 28:19]” (Hibbert Journal, 1902). The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states that Mt 28:19 “is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view [trinitarian formula].  If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism… The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent… the traditional [trinitarian] text was brought about by the [trinitarian baptismal] influence working on the Eusebian [Gospel of Matthew, which originally stated “in My name”] text”. Martineau in his “Seat of Authority” Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 515 writes: “The very account which tells us that at las t, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations, betrayed itself by speaking in the trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself.” Hoeck asks, “How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come?” Fred Conybeare notes, “In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to [the nowadays forged] Matthew 28:19 is once cited–but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows–'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' ” (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287). But even this may be a forgery not produced by Theodotus, but by Clement himself, as Dr. P. M. Barnard, who collected the N. T. citations of Clement in a volume of the Cambridge Texts and Studies suggests. For other spurious quotations see Appendix 3. Regarding baptism*, there is no record in the New Testament that any baptism using a trinitarian command was ever carried out by the Apostles.  They always used the name of Jesus Christ, but never any trinitarian formula.  The Apostles were obedient to the real order in Matthew 28:19 as originally given by their Lord and Master Jesus Christ, before his ascension to heaven.  The following verses show the truth of what the Apostles did: “Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). “For as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord *.  Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts 10:48). “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). The word trinity or its formula was not present in the original manuscripts of the Bible. Contrary to that Trinitarian formula, a cross validation even of the words of Jesus Christ at that very moment, sets for us to see, if we want to, the truth of what he really have had said: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).   The same Luke gave us the most detailed account of Jesus’ last words before his ascent to heaven in the book of Acts:           “…unto the apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen [including Jude, the traitor apostle, present still at this moment, later killing himself]… he [Jesus] shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days… being [Jesus] assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with holy spirit not many days hence… ye shall receive power, after that the holy spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up…” (Acts 1:2b-5, 8-9a). Jesus never declared, “you will be witnesses of the holy trinity”, but rather “ye shall be witnesses unto me”. By simple scripture build up we can see complementary information given by Mark: “And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized [with holy spirit (Acts 1:5)] shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover [all these are “manifestations of the spirit” within us (1 Cor. Ch. 12 to Ch. 14)]. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mk 16:15-20). Jesus never said “in the name of the trinity you will cast demons”, rather “In my name shall they cast out devils [Gk. daimonia]” The conclusions of all writings of the Apostle John are also significant: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn 20:30-31). “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1Jn 5:13). John words are: “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. John never said that his writings were written “that we might believe that Jesus is God the Son”, as religion, twisting interpretations of the very same writings of John and of the rest of the scriptures, desire us to believe, trying to prevent that more people, with all their religious twisting of the truth, could be born again, and have life through Jesus’ name, and to know that we have eternal life. John wrote many comparisons regarding who Christ is, he is: the word (1:1), the water (7:37), the bread (6:35), the light (8:12), the good shepherd (10:11), the door (10:7), the true vine (15:1), etc. Hoverer, religion misunderstood him, and adulterated the gift of holy spirit, transforming it in a third “person” of the trinity, and also transformed Jesus “the man – man’s redeemer”, “the advocate and the mediator of men” into an unreachable God, and substituted the spiritual baptism with the outdated water baptism, which was likened to a pagan religious “initiation”, adding to it the abomination of the heathen mysteries of the trinity, and making its followers to believe that the dead still alive, allowing demons to impersonate “the dead”, as in catholic churches, through religious images, etc… this are only few, among other many tricks, fully supported by God’s adversary, and introduced through philosophies of men, men lacking of holy spirit, men twice dead (deceivers that indeed are going to experience the second death, as Jude verses 12 and 19 clearly manifest). We have seen that there exists in the Bible the powerful and clear evidence, given by God, against words inserted by men (that’s why wee need to be aware and acquainted with All the Bible and not only with just “one verse”), men whose purpose is to carry out their own theology, as we can read in the last words of Paul, John, Peter and Jude (Appendix 6).  Even if under a “sincere principle of unity”, as Constantine desired, we know that “sincerity is no guarantee for truth”.  It is our responsibility to read the Bible carefully to see the written truth and not being guided by doctrines designed by men to fulfill their private political agendas (historic example in Appendix 2). This work is aimed for those who seek and ask (Lk. 11:9-13). After the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), quotations of works attributed to Eusebius Pamphilus, done by Athanasius and others, include the trinitarian formula. That was “a retouch”, showing the political and religious impact of the Nicene decision. This was a painful decision that moved towards the mishandling and tampering of God’s Word, which ended in thousands of born again Christians being discriminated and/or martyred (in Appendix 3, decisions made by Theodosius I and by the Theophilus popes). The Greek Christian Justin Martyr, who wrote in the middle of the second century, never quoted “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” nor did Aphraates (Aphrahat The Persian Sage) in the early fourth century, neither the great theologian Origen, nor Hermas the shepherd. This manifests that Eusebius in his Greek and Latin texts, Justin in his Greek texts, and Aphrahat in his Syriac texts, must have had earlier manuscripts without the added words (Appendix 1). It was not difficult for Fourth Century scribes after the Nicene order to destroy genuine manuscripts and to retain the forged ones, changing the words “in my name” to “in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost”, since the Godhead was gradually taking on a triune nature in their political-religious environment (Appendix 5 shows that as late as in 1520 A. D., catholic hands forged a MS to tamper also 1 John 5:7-8 for Erasmus’s “Textus Receptus”, 3rd edition, damning the KJV even more by including it. If this forgery of 1 John 5:7-8 is a well known fact, why we don’t help everybody to see that a similar forgery was done earlier to tamper with Matthew 28:19, and with any other secular writing (at least, that was the evident attempt of the Athanasians, as we can see in the forged Ignatian epistles, in the forgery upon the anonymous Didache and upon many other documents (Appendix 3). Only by the grace of God it was left for us to see the truth in Mt. 28:19 from the original writings of Origen, Eusebius, Justin, Aphrahat, Hermas, and others still to discover)). That the forgery of Biblical texts and of other earlier Christian writers was “the norm” with the full authorization of the Popes and of all catholic theologians of that time (and of to-day) can be seen in written words of the forgers themselves, words that have reached us, even in the midst of a strict and heinous “catholic censorship”, see for example Rufinus (who at the conclusion of his version of Origen’s Commentary on Romans boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”), by Jerome (who in his Preface to The Four Gospels of his Vulgate NT wrote, “Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will …call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books… which enable me to bear the odium-in the first place, [is that] the command is given by you [Pope Damasus, A.D. 383]”), by Basil “the Great” of Caesarea (that writes in his Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XXVIII “…passages… viewed with suspicion… really have been altered… fact of their having been tampered with… Those however which I [Basil] have quoted at length…”), and by many others, considered “saints” by the catholic church (Appendix 3). * Additional Note Regarding Water Baptism: Water baptism is no longer necessary, since we now have the true baptism, which is the spiritual baptism in holy spirit, also called,  “the receiving of power from on high”  (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8), and “the gift of God” (Acts 2:38), and also, “the promise of our Father” (Acts 1:4). Christ told his disciples: “Acts 1:5: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” John the Baptist recognized that this spiritual baptism would be provided by Christ (Mt. 3:11) as did Priscilla and Aquila. Today (as Apollos or as Philip did then), many people still acknowledge the baptism of John (Acts 18:25) as the only baptism.  However, now we need to expound unto them “the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26),” in the same way as Paul did, proclaiming the new birth, which is being born again of holy spirit, and not of water submersion or ablutions. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledged this simple truth: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:16). This greatly upset Cyprian (and others of his kind to-day), because water was no longer needed, neither it has ever been needed any trinitarian formula. Cyprian’s doctrines were just the philosophies of men’s imaginations (Appendix 3). Baptism today is to be born again, receiving holy spirit in the name of Christ Jesus, just as the Apostle Paul taught and performed, no longer using water, but through the spiritual new birth, the receiving of salvation, which is “Christ in us, the hope of the glory” (Col. 1:27). ————— Other word not present in older texts, and already corrected in almost all recent versions, can be found in: 1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:               “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” The word “God” still appears in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives. The proper translation should read: 1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness,           which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Great is the Mystery of godliness, which [Mystery] was manifested in the flesh! The Revised Version of 1885 gives “He who” in the text, and is rightly stated in the margin, “The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”. Some ancient authorities read “which”. This is our belief. We believe that the original word was ho (0), “which”, in the neuter form, to agree with the word musterion, which is also neuter. Then, a scribe who, not understanding why it was in neuter, added an “S,” thus turning ho into hos (0ς), which made it masculine, “who”, or “He who”, though with that change is thus made more obscure. Finally, some later scribe put a little mark in the “0,” thus making it into Th (θ), and making the two letters ThS (θς), an abbreviation of the word Theos (θεος), God (The “Englishman’s Greek New Testament” of Thomas Newberry (1877), and its revised form done by George Ricker Berry (1897) even expand the abbreviation to make it be as θεος without the support of the evidence of all manuscripts, even when they quote in a footnote: “0ς , “who”, appears in Griesbach 1805, Lachmann 1842-50, Tischendorf 8th ed. 1865-72, Tregelles 1857-72, Alford 1862-71, and Wordsworth 1870”). A microscope reveals the fact that the little mark in the “0” in the Alexandrine MS (Codex A in the British Museum) is in different ink, and was evidently added by a later hand. This, we believe to be the corruption of the reading, and that originally it was simply “0,” which. The old Syriac and all the Older Latin Versions agree with this translation (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1803). “The Codex Claromontanus, Uncial 061, the Vulgate and Older Latin Manuscripts contain ho (0) rather than hos (0ς)”. D and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun 0, “which”. That the 0ς, θς, θεος reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading 0. B. M. Metzger notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεος; no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεος” (Textual Commentary, 574). To see more Biblical details on this verse: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc2/mystery.htm 1 Tim. 3:16 is generally taken of Christ personal, but if read of the Body of Christ, which is his Church, th en, in the six sentences of 1 Tim. 3:16 we have the whole truth concerning the Body of Christ that is now revealed on earth. The place occupied by the Revelation of the Mystery in 1 Tim. 3:16 (the “Mystery of Godliness”) will be best understood by the important position it occupies in contrast with the “Mystery of Iniquity” (1 Tim 4:1-12), as discussed in the link referred (Ethelbert W. Bullinger, The Mystery, Things to Come, part IV, Dec. 1895, 2(6):102-105). [The Greek word “0 ”is translated correctly as the word “which” in the Latin Vulgate, in the James Murdock Translation of the Syriac Peshitta and in the Douay-Rheims; is translated as “that” in the French 1910 Louis Segond, and as “it” is (and the word “is” in present tense) in the 1933 Lamsa Translation from the Peshitta; the changed “0ς” has been translated to “He who” in the Westcott-Hort Greek Critical Text, in the 1901 American Standard Version, in the New American Standard Bible, in J. B. Rotherham, in the 1949 Bible in Basic English, in The Living Oracles; “0ς” as “He” in the NET Bible, in the International Standard Version, in the Revised Standard Version, in the Revised King James Version, in the New International Version, in the Common Edition, in the Twentieth Century, in The Message, in Good News, in God’s Word, in the Portuguese Joao Ferreira de Almeida, in the Spanish Reina Valera Actualizada and LBLA; “0ς” as “who” in the Emphatic Diaglott, in the Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, as “that” (Christ) in the 1912 Weymouth translation, as “Christ” in the Contemporary English Version, in the New Living Translation, etc. None of these translations includes here the word “God”.] On reading faithfully your Bible you can easily see that the “central mystery of the Christian faith”, is in reality the Mystery, and not “the trinity”. The Mystery revealed by God to us, the members of the body of Christ, is that when we confess Jesus Christ as our Lord, and when we believe that God raised him from the dead, then we are saved, then is Christ in us the hope of glory, then we have holy spirit within, and both Jews and Gentiles are fellow-heirs and members of the same Body of Christ, which is his Church. The expression “God the Son” is never to be found in the Bible, nor the catholic creed expression “true God of true God”, neither “God incarnated”.  However, the expression “Son of God” regarding Jesus Christ is found at least 68 times.  God and Jesus Christ are one in purpose, and they want us to be one with them also:            John 17:20-23: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me” Here the word “one” in Greek is “hen”, which is neuter, not a person, not masculine, and it is the same word “hen” translated also “one” in John 10:30, when Jesus said “I and my Father are one”, and by its context, being “one” is to be one in purpose and in will, Christ with God and we with them. Jesus Christ stated that: “my Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28, 10:29). The Bible also states that “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3), and that “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Why don’t believe in the Bible only? Remember that the key of our salvation is given in Rom. 10:9: “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Revised King James Version). It does not say, “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is God”. In the book of Acts we can see time after time the same confession, that: “Jesus Christ is Lord”, as in the first preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,” and in his first preaching to the gentiles: “The word which God sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:).” Other examples can be found in Acts 4:33, 7:59, 8:16, 9:17,27,29, 11:17,20, 15:11,16, 16:31, 19:10,17, 20:21,24,35, 21:13, 28:31, and also in Acts 2:38, 3:6, 4:18, 5:40, 16:18, 1 Cor. 1:2, Philip. 2:9-11, etc.  As stated before, you will never find the word trinity or any of the trinitarian formulas in the book of Acts or in any other book of the revealed Bible. The testimony of God himself, when referring to Jesus is: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3:17, Mk. 1:11, Lk. 1:22 and 9:35), are we going to believe God Himself on this? The testimony of Jesus Christ, regarding who he is: “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Jn. 10:36), are we going to believe Jesus Christ’s testimony of who he is, as it was given by himself?  On his testimony Jesus was confirming what his father had already expressed regarding who Jesus is. The testimony of John the Apostle, on giving the purpose of all his writings is: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30-31, 1 Jn. 5:13). John the Apostle is giving at the end of his book this beautiful summary, to don’t let anybody in any doubt or misunderstanding about the truth contained within everything that he wrote. God himself, and Jesus Christ, and John, and Peter, who by revelation had said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16), and the rest of the pure Biblical Scriptures, I ask, are all of them “blaspheming” because none of them says what the catholic religion says (Appendix 3), or what the Koran says (Appendix 4)? Jude Iscariot was one of the original Apostles and he betrayed Jesus Christ, Thomas Didymus was another, and he did not believed in the Word of God, until seeing. What about ourselves? ————— Another scripture deliberately changed, and corrected to its original form by almost all recent versions and translations, as it contains the only second “trinitarian formula” that was added by pro-Nicene hands, is: 1 John 5:7-8: 7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” These verses still appear in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives. KJV verses 7 and 8 contain words that do not appear in any of the early manuscripts. The words added begin in verse 7 with “in heaven” and goes unto “in earth” in verse 8. These words are found in only four Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension (alteration) of the Latin Vulgate (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament, N.Y.: United Bible Societies, 1971, pp. 716-717). They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies, and from there they have crept into the text (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1876). The earlier texts read as follows: 1 John 5:7-8: “For there are three that bear record, _ the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” _ represents that none of the added words were originally present there. [Added words never included in: 1881 Westcott and Hort, 1889 Darby Bible, German Luther Bible (Appendix 5, version available in the e-Sword Free Software), 1901 American Standard Version, 1912 Weymouth, 1949 Bible in Basic English, New American Standard Bible, The Common Edition, The Emphatic Diaglott, Majority Text, Living Oracles, Montgomery, New International Version, Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, Revised Standard Version, Revised King James New Testament, Twentieth Century, NET Bible, World English Bible, “Reina-Valera Actualizada,” this verse even is accurate in The Vulgate, etc.] “Including more words was an attempt of a scribe or scribes to corrupt the original text with the theology propounded by Tertullian (early third century, the first person to use the word trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, devoting a treatise to it), Cyprian (third century), Athanasius (fourth century, the main influencer in the Nicene trinity), Hieronymus (Jerome, translator of The Vulgate, fifth century), Augustine (fifth century),” etc. (their writings, Appendix 3). These practices “for the forgiveness of sins”, or as the later form took over, when baptizing even babies, “as a signature of pertaining to “the right” church”, using water “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”, replaced the original commandment given: to provide salvation and holy spirit to everyone who believes “in the name of Jesus Christ”. The insertion within 1 John 5:7-8 was omitted completely by the English committee in the Revised Version of 1881-1885, and by the American committee in the American Standard Version of 1901.  Yet both, the American and the British Bible Societies, knowing that the ancient texts and manuscripts do not substantiate the insertion, have continued to insert the error in the newer versions of the King James Version (KJV) as genuine Scripture.  To print these verses for many years after it was known not to be true, is an immoral act with Scripture, and as such, it is sin. The mystery of the trinity is within the creeds of men, not in the Word of God.  Why not just simply believe the truth of God’s Word?  “Religious men” wants us to worship their own human thoughts consecrated as dogmas and not the true God!  However, the seekers after the truth will sooner or later discover all the mistranslations, as well as all the forgeries on which the doctrine of the trinity has been based.  Thinking people will not continue following leaders in whose honesty they have no confidence, those leaders who defile the Word of God and defile themselves.  To say that Jesus Christ is God the Son is idolatry.  To say: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, is truth. The student is not told that the dogma of the trinity unified the roman church by persecution, it is concealed from him that Theodosius “the Great” (see Appendix 3 to read his statement and of his sanguinary character), in the latter part of the fourth century made, by force, the trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire; and at that time, there were not enough trinitarians in the capital city of Constantinople on the first Sunday thereafter, to place, not even to one single trinitarian worshipper in each church building in the city.  God’s revelation to men opens with God creating, and closes when “the Son, also himself being subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) [in Appendix 5 details on the history of the catholic insertion of trinitary words in 1 Jn. 5:7-8, words deceivingly retained today by “religious men”]. The Bible says, regarding those early (and of today) theologians, which with their personal aspirations took over the control of the “church” since its early days: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Acts 20:29-31). “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain” (2 Tim. 1:15-16). Etc… (more references can be found in Appendix 6). By the end of the first century, the only apostolic procession was by these grievous wolves. In our search for truth, we must trust in the Scriptures themselves and not in the “church tradition” laid by grievous wolves in sheep’s clothing (Bill Powell, 1998, on his Online review of “The Names and Order of the Books of the Old Testament”, originally written by E. W. Bullinger in Things to Come in 1894, 1(6):110). If Jesus Christ himself, or if his Apostles did not established an “official religious institution”, nor “official creed”, nor “dogmas”, nor “doctrines”, who are we to establish our own creeds, dogmas and doctrines?  Or even worse, who are we to oppress and to obligate others to submit to us and to our own vain imaginations, through such creeds and dogmas?  Notoriously, they are proven to be wrong when compared with the pure fountain of the living Word. Enough is to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). This is the testimony of the Word of God regarding the invalidity of any kind of doctrines or dogmas, either from the law period or of any other of men’s imaginations in this age of grace, in this administration of the mystery revealed by God to us in his Word: “Having abolished [Jesus Christ] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (dogmas); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Eph. 2:15). “Blotting out [Jesus Christ] the handwriting of ordinances (dogmas) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14). “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (dogmatidzo)? …” (Col. 2:20). We are living today the Mystery revealed by God, the age of the grace of God! Regarding doctrines not to be found in the original revelation of the Bible: “He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men… ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mk. 7:6-9). “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein” (Heb. 13:9). “Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (Col. 2:21-22). “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1Tim. 4:1). God reminds us not to alter the Holy Scriptures.  Therefore, all individuals or groups that have done so (willingly) are accursed (damn, reproved) according to God: “For I testify unto every man th at heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen” (Rev. 22:18-21). “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32). “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6).

Well I wouldn't doubt it. Why else would the apostles NOT baptize in the 3 names instead they baptized only in Jesus' name. But gee shouldn't they have changed Acts also? But of course they didn't know God would make His Word plubic by print. They kept the bible from the people for centuries.

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

[kenrch]

Thanks Sscott.

[kenrch]

Oh WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

You guys have the problem!

You are the ones that dont believe the scriptures. Over 600 scholars interpreted the text as you read it. Thousands of the most ancient copys have it there.

Just like John 1:1. The burden of proof is on you. There is “NO EVIDENCE” that the text was altered.

Simply speculation and rumer.

Believe the scriptures. Our Fathers going back to 100 AD like Ignatius believed it.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

For they *alienate Christ from the Father*, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; *and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists*. Some of them say that *the Son is a mere man*, and that *the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person*, and that *the creation is the work of God, not by Christ*, but by some other strange power.

Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with *Jesus Christ our God*, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles.

In answer  your question scott.

The disciples knew the word “Name” is singular for the three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost all having the “definite article”.

They understood that Jesus was speaking of “Authority” and not three names as the preceeding verse shows.

Matt 28:19
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth

They understood that Jesus was the “Name above all names” and in that name was all the power of heaven and earth and that in that name was the “Authority” of the Godhead.

You find yourselves again denying the written scriptures in order to hold on to your doctrine!

The Decepto-meter is turned way up for you guys!

Decepto-meter

[Not3in1]

“Jesus Christ our God” – it should sound foreign to your ears (it does mine) because it is not written ANYWHERE absolutely without question!

Scary!  Talk about deception; brother, you're in the thick of it!  I hope Ignatius can save you?

[Not3in1]

Iggy said that some believed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be the SAME PERSON and they would be wrong! Then you go on to say that it is OK to use “Name” in the singular………..well, are they three persons or one? Do they not each have their own name?

[NickHassan]

Hi W,
This question has not been answered despite your bluster.
“Why else would the apostles NOT baptize in the 3 names instead they baptized only in Jesus' name. “

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 28 2007,18:24)

“Jesus Christ our God” – it should sound foreign to your ears (it does mine) because it is not written ANYWHERE absolutely without question! Scary!  Talk about deception; brother, you're in the thick of it!  I hope Ignatius can save you?

Not3

It si written without question.

But you refuse to believe it!

Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jn 20:
28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God.

Why cant you just believe the scriptures without putting a “Unitarian” twist to it?

The problem that you have is Thomas didnt say…

“MY LORD AND MY FATHER”, did he?

Listen again…

Jn 20:
28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God.

This passage seems to be so distressing to the Unitarians and Henotheist and Arians.

If I was one I would be stressed to.

Blessings.  

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 28 2007,18:26)

Iggy said that some believed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be the SAME PERSON and they would be wrong!  Then you go on to say that it is OK to use “Name” in the singular………..well, are they three persons or one?  Do they not each have their own name?

not3

Matt 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:

Name – Greek 'onoma'; which means…

1) name: univ. of proper names

2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.

The word name here is singular. Jesus is telling the disciples based on Matt 28:18 to go and baptise in the name of (authority of) of the Father (with the definate article), The son (with the definate article) and the Holy Ghost (with the definite article).

Not three names, but in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!

All the authority and power in heaven and earth is in the “Name of Jesus”.

Tell me not three, what is the Fathers name?

Can you find his name in the New testament?

Did Jesus mention his name?

HMMM!

BTW.

Yahshua means: YHWH is salvation!

Matt 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[TimothyVI]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2007,03:45)

Jn 20: 28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God. Why cant you just believe the scriptures without putting a “Unitarian” twist to it? The problem that you have is Thomas didnt say… “MY LORD AND MY FATHER”, did he?

Hi WorshippingJesus,

You say that , “The problem that you have is Thomas didnt say…

“MY LORD AND MY FATHER”, did he? “

My problem is that Thomas also did not say My Lord and God of the universe, or My Lord and God of creation, or my Lord the one true God. He said nothing to that effect. He just said my Lord and my God. The one true God the father called Jesus a God. So why would the statement of Thomas make you believe that Jesus was THE ONE TRUE GOD?

Your arguments are good WorshippingJesus. I just need to understand your logic.

Tim

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (TimothyVI @ June 29 2007,04:24)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2007,03:45) Jn 20: 28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God. Why cant you just believe the scriptures without putting a “Unitarian” twist to it? The problem that you have is Thomas didnt say… “MY LORD AND MY FATHER”, did he? Hi WorshippingJesus, You say that , “The problem that you have is Thomas didnt say… “MY LORD AND MY FATHER”, did he? “ My problem is that Thomas also did not say My Lord and God of the universe, or My Lord and God of creation, or my Lord the one true God. He said nothing to that effect. He just said my Lord and my God.  The one true God the father called Jesus a God. So why would the statement of Thomas make you believe that Jesus was THE ONE TRUE GOD? Your arguments are good WorshippingJesus. I just need to understand your logic. Tim

Tim

And what does it take?

What if he would have said “My Lord and God of the Unirverse”, would you believe or would you say, “if he would have said “My Lord and My God of the universe and the only true God? Get my point?

Did Jesus have to give all the appalations you speak of when he mentioned the Father for you to believe the Father is God?

Why would you not believe what Thomas said in the presence of our Lord and John and others without rebuke or correction?

Because if you believe Thomas is saying Jesus is “a god”, then he would be committing “Idolatry”, and dont you think that would have been corrected by our Lord or John?

If Jesus is “a god”, is he a “true god” or a false one?

You see again the problem this presents is if you believe that Jesus is “a god” and not the “true God” then you have Polytheism.

Instead we have our Lord saying…

Jn 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me (your Lord and God), thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

So Tim are you of the opinion that God has “a god” at his right hand?

[TimothyVI]

Thank you WorshippingJesus,

Actually, I am of the opinion that God has a Son at his right hand to whom He has given all authority
for a time. If He wishes for His son to be called a God, then it can be so.

Tim

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2007,03:45)

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 28 2007,18:24) “Jesus Christ our God” – it should sound foreign to your ears (it does mine) because it is not written ANYWHERE absolutely without question! Scary!  Talk about deception; brother, you're in the thick of it!  I hope Ignatius can save you? Not3 It si written without question. But you refuse to believe it! Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jn 20: 28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God. Why cant you just believe the scriptures without putting a “Unitarian” twist to it? The problem that you have is Thomas didnt say… “MY LORD AND MY FATHER”, did he? Listen again… Jn 20: 28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God. This passage seems to be so distressing to the Unitarians and Henotheist and Arians. If I was one I would be stressed to. Blessings.

With all due respect, your posts are starting to sound like a broken record WJ. Are you just pasting the same things on to new posts?

All of the scriptures you have posted here have been answered by a number of the pagens here My point is, there are other ways to take these scriptures. Scripture lends itself to both (or many) views.

If you can find me an absolute scripture that says Jesus is God (like the absolute scriptures that say God is One and the Father only), then I will glady convert.

[TimothyVI]

I guess that my inability to follow your logic stems from the fact that it is that it is stessed over 200 times in the new testament that Jesus is the son of God. Jesus himself stresses this fact.
Yet man has latched on to one or two questionable verses that can be understood in different ways,
and has concluded that Jesus was deluding us and in fact is God.

Tim

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2007,04:04)

2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.

This is interesting.

Would this definition apply to the “name” Word/Logos?

[Author]

Posts