Matthew 28:19 authentic or not?

[JustAskin]

TT,
You want me to prove that I have spoken incorrectly against WJ?
or
You want me to prove that I have spoken correctly against WJ?
or
You want me to prove that I have not spoken incorrectly against WJ?
or
You want me to prove that I have not spoken correctly against WJ?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2010,14:07)

Quote (thethinker @ May 13 2010,08:38) David, The distinctions in the verses you give are not cardinal but ordinal. Hi Thinker, It doesn't matter how many five dollar words you use, or how much you try to “pretty it up”.  All those Scriptures showed Paul talking of two persons.  Only one of those persons is God.  The other person is one who is not God.  It's really just that simple, dude. peace and love, mike

Mike,

Paul did not say that the other person (Christ) is not God. If this is what he was saying then he contradicts himself for he explicitly said that Jesus is  “God” in Titus 2:13.

By your logic the Father would not be “Lord”

3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Galatians 1:3

I don't see Paul denying that Jesus is God in the verses David gives any more than you see Paul denying that the Father is Lord in the verse in the verse I give.

If you cannot apply your logic consistently then you should discard it.

I repeat: Apply your logic consistently or DISCARD IT!

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2010,14:11)

Quote (thethinker @ May 13 2010,08:46) David asked: Quote So my question: If the Spirit were an individual co-equal with the Father and the Son, how is it that these 3 did not include him? David, Your argument from silence is weak. WJ has already provided statements from scripture which do speak of the three together including the Spirit. By your logic we should conclude that Ananias and Sapphira did not lie to the Father or to Jesus because the Spirit alone is mentioned (Acts 5). The narrative says that they lied to the Holy Spirit. When will you guys come up with an argument that has substance? When will you show that Trinitarianism violates the law of non-contradiction? thinker Thinker, You refer to what verses 3 and 4 say.  Tell me, what does verse 9 say? peace and love, mike

Mike,

Thanks man! They tempted the Spirit of the “Lord” (Christ). Therefore, the “God” to whom they lied was Christ.

Thanks again!

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (JustAskin @ May 13 2010,23:57)

TT, You want me to prove that I have spoken incorrectly against WJ? or You want me to prove that I have spoken correctly against WJ? or You want me to prove that I have not spoken incorrectly against WJ? or You want me to prove that I have not spoken correctly against WJ?

JA,

God wants you to prove that you have spoken correctly against WJ

or

Righteousness wants you to prove that you have spoken correctly against WJ

or

The law of Moses wants you to prove that you have spoken correctly against WJ

or

Conscience wants you to prove that you have spoken correctly against WJ

or

Keep quiet about WJ and stick to the issues.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (JustAskin @ May 13 2010,23:57)

TT, You want me to prove that I have spoken incorrectly against WJ? or You want me to prove that I have spoken correctly against WJ? or You want me to prove that I have not spoken incorrectly against WJ? or You want me to prove that I have not spoken correctly against WJ?

JA,

You have been proven to be a false accuser and you should be banned from here. You gave Mike a cut n' paste statement by me and he used it and looked like a fool. If Mike is smart he will not trust you after this. I exposed your deceitfulness in my debate with Mike.  

FROM DEBATE THREAD:

Mike copied and pasted my statement below to Nick as “proof” that I said that Christ is superior to the Father:

Quote

But God Himself could not love the way Jesus did. The greatest love is to lay down one's own life for another which you say God cannot do. Ergo, Jesus did not show the love of God “perfectly.” The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love. thinker

 

Mike,

You and JA have copied and pasted me out of context. Note the section of my statement in blue bold above. My argument was that IF Jesus was not God, then God did not love the way Jesus did. I was showing that anti-trinitarianism implies that God did not love the way Jesus did. Nick says that God could not lay down His life. If God cannot not lay down His life, then He cannot love the way Jesus did. I have already answered this false charge.

Below is EVERYTHING I said that day in relation to this statement.

Nick:

Quote

Hi WJ, Indeed Jesus perfectly showed God in nature and power. God was in him

thethinker:

Quote

But God Himself could not love the way Jesus did. The greatest love is to lay down one's own life for another which you say God cannot do. Ergo, Jesus did not show the love of God “perfectly.” The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love. thinker

 

JustAskin:

Quote

TT, “Love”, He did that through his SON – you know the scriptures – why are you belittling your knowledge?

thethinker:

Quote

Hush up! You're no match for me! Your logic infers that the love of Jesus was greater than God's love. Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his own life for another.” So the only way God's love can match the love of Jesus is if Jesus was God in the flesh. For it was Jesus who loved the greatest by laying down HIS OWN LIFE. If you reject that Jesus was God in the flesh then God's love was inferior to the love of Jesus. Quite a conundrum for you isn't it? thinker

NOTE: I SAID, “IF YOU REJECT THAT JESUS WAS GOD IN THE FLESH THEN GOD'S LOVE WAS INFERIOR TO THE LOVE OF JESUS.”

JustAskin:

Quote

What is wrong with you: “For God so loved the World [           ]”  – fill in the blank space.

thethinker:

Quote

More half truths. The fact is that Jesus did the greatest act of love because He laid down HIS OWN LIFE. So if He was not God in the flesh then His love is greater than God's love. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down His own life for another.” Either Jesus was God in the flesh or His love was greater than God's love. You haven't solved your conundrum. thinker

JustAskin:

Quote

You are beyond hope. Since God contains everything how can something within him be greater than or even equal to him. Can a part (amongst many parts) be equal to the whole?

thethinker:

Quote

JA, You minimize the love of Jesus just like all other anti-trinitarians here. He EXPLICITLY said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his own life for another.” If Jesus was not God in the flesh , then His love surpassed the love of God. God only “so loved” while Christ loved in the highest sense possible. If you confess the truth that Christ was God in the flesh, then your conundrum disappears and the love of God becomes equal to the love of Christ.

THERE IT IS MIKE! I SAID, “IF YOU CONFESS THE TRUTH THAT CHRIST WAS GOD IN THE FLESH, THEN YOUR CONUNDRUM DISAPPEARS AND THE LOVE OF GOD BECOMES EQUAL TO THE LOVE OF CHRIST.”

*****The next time this kind of misrepresentation happens I will ask the technical administrator to close this debate*****

I was clearly showing the logical conclusion that comes from denying that Jesus is God. If Jesus is not God, then His love surpassed the love of God.

See pages 383- 385 of the Trinity 2 thread.

TO JA:

How do people like you and Martian sleep at night?

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (thethinker @ May 14 2010,04:01)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2010,14:07) Quote (thethinker @ May 13 2010,08:38) David, The distinctions in the verses you give are not cardinal but ordinal. Hi Thinker, It doesn't matter how many five dollar words you use, or how much you try to “pretty it up”.  All those Scriptures showed Paul talking of two persons.  Only one of those persons is God.  The other person is one who is not God.  It's really just that simple, dude. peace and love, mike Mike, Paul did not say that the other person (Christ) is not God. If this is what he was saying then he contradicts himself for he explicitly said that Jesus is  “God” in Titus 2:13. By your logic the Father would not be “Lord” 3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Galatians 1:3 I don't see Paul denying that Jesus is God in the verses David gives any more than you see Paul denying that the Father is Lord in the verse in the verse I give. If you cannot apply your logic consistently then you should discard it. I repeat: Apply your logic consistently or DISCARD IT! thinker

TO KEITH:

Keith,

Have you ever wondered why anti-trintarian logic is selective? They say that the formula “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” amounts to the denial that Jesus Christ is God. But it does not amount to the denial that the Father is Lord.

Seems that they cannot consistently maintain their cardinal distinctions. Therefore, their logic is flawed.

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,21:56)

Hi WJ, I have asked you what exactly Matt 28:19 means to you.  You played word games and said I have a comprehension problem.  So I clarified my question as plain as I possibly could have, and what do you decide to answer to?  This other post to Paul.

Is there some rule that I am aware of that I have to answer every post? I don’t run around accusing you of not answering post. I only brought up the unanswered questions in the debates thread because of your constant false accusations of me avoiding tough questions. Believe me if there is something that I am hiding or afraid not to answer, I would have been gone from here a long time ago.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,21:56)

Where's the answer to the question I've had to ask 4 different ways?  Where's the answer to my question on the wording of “throne” in Rev?  This is the 4th time now.  This is my post to you from page 17 of this thread:

Your question is a non issue that’s why I chose not to answer. What are you trying to prove here? Does the Holy Spirit have a throne? Where is the Holy Spirit proceeding from Mike? Does the Holy Spirit have his own throne? No, but that is not the role of the Holy Spirit is it? The Holy Spirit is ‘Omnipresent”, why does he need a throne? He is sent to speak of the Father and the Son and not to speak about himself. He is subservient to the Father and Jesus. So what is your point? How does that make the Holy Spirit less God? Jesus has the Holy Spirit without measure and where is Jesus sitting? Tell me what attribute the Father has that the Holy Spirit does not have? The president of the USA is greater than you Mike, but he is no less human than you are, is he? Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,21:56)

Very simply, this is what I want to know. You imply that Matt 28:19 mentions a trinity.  If you are saying only that it mentions three together, and that is your definition of trinity, then I agree.  It is no different than mentioning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob together.

I am glad you agree, but like David you use examples that do not compare, because the three you mention do not have the same name do they? Nor are they corporately part of a divine mandate are they?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,21:56)

But here is where you get tricky.  You say that while it doesn't prove the trinity doctrine, it proves a trinity is mentioned in the Bible.  So what?  A “trinity” of the sun, moon and stars are also mentioned, in that they are all mentioned together.  So my original question stands: What do you think Matthew 28:19 proves?

There you go asking the same question again. See that is what I am talking about. You get an answer but you keep asking the same thing as if you are going to get a different answer. This whole thing started because you said there was not even a hint of a Trinity found in scriptures. Well you were wrong as you can see you now agree that it is a Trinity. That was all I wanted to prove to you that Jesus mentioned a Trinity. Now that you see this then the obvious question which no one and especially you have not answered is…

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (thethinker @ May 13 2010,13:34)

Quote (thethinker @ May 14 2010,04:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2010,14:07) Quote (thethinker @ May 13 2010,08:38) David, The distinctions in the verses you give are not cardinal but ordinal. Hi Thinker, It doesn't matter how many five dollar words you use, or how much you try to “pretty it up”.  All those Scriptures showed Paul talking of two persons.  Only one of those persons is God.  The other person is one who is not God.  It's really just that simple, dude. peace and love, mike Mike, Paul did not say that the other person (Christ) is not God. If this is what he was saying then he contradicts himself for he explicitly said that Jesus is  “God” in Titus 2:13. By your logic the Father would not be “Lord” 3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Galatians 1:3 I don't see Paul denying that Jesus is God in the verses David gives any more than you see Paul denying that the Father is Lord in the verse in the verse I give. If you cannot apply your logic consistently then you should discard it. I repeat: Apply your logic consistently or DISCARD IT! thinker TO KEITH: Keith, Have you ever wondered why anti-trintarian logic is selective? They say that the formula “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” amounts to the denial that Jesus Christ is God. But it does not amount to the denial that the Father is Lord. Seems that they cannot consistently maintain their cardinal distinctions. Therefore, their logic is flawed. thinker

Jack

Yep, I notice! Its like having your cake and eating it too. Its like saying there is “only one theos” but then saying there is “more than one theos”. Inconsistant indeed.

Jesus is a true god but the Father is the “Only true god”.

Purely word games, and as David puts it, “Title Confusion Tricks”.

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 14 2010,06:03)

Quote (thethinker @ May 13 2010,13:34) Quote (thethinker @ May 14 2010,04:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2010,14:07) Quote (thethinker @ May 13 2010,08:38) David, The distinctions in the verses you give are not cardinal but ordinal. Hi Thinker, It doesn't matter how many five dollar words you use, or how much you try to “pretty it up”.  All those Scriptures showed Paul talking of two persons.  Only one of those persons is God.  The other person is one who is not God.  It's really just that simple, dude. peace and love, mike Mike, Paul did not say that the other person (Christ) is not God. If this is what he was saying then he contradicts himself for he explicitly said that Jesus is  “God” in Titus 2:13. By your logic the Father would not be “Lord” 3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Galatians 1:3 I don't see Paul denying that Jesus is God in the verses David gives any more than you see Paul denying that the Father is Lord in the verse in the verse I give. If you cannot apply your logic consistently then you should discard it. I repeat: Apply your logic consistently or DISCARD IT! thinker TO KEITH: Keith, Have you ever wondered why anti-trintarian logic is selective? They say that the formula “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” amounts to the denial that Jesus Christ is God. But it does not amount to the denial that the Father is Lord. Seems that they cannot consistently maintain their cardinal distinctions. Therefore, their logic is flawed. thinker Jack Yep, I notice! Its like having your cake and eating it too. Its like saying there is “only one theos” but then saying there is “more than one theos”. Inconsistant indeed. Jesus is a true god but the Father is the “Only true god”. Purely word games, and as David puts it, “Title Confusion Tricks”. WJ

Keith,

The JW's are the most notorious for playing word games. They would be more consistent if like other Arians they denied the pre-existence of Jesus and that He is any kind of god at all. But they want their cake and eat it too as you say. To David, Mike and their JW friends Jesus is a true theos while the Father is the only true theos.  

This may be called “flip flop exegesis”

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
The sand you stand on to mock from seems to be unstable.
Know God and His Son.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 14 2010,07:27)

Hi TT, The sand you stand on to mock from seems to be unstable. Know God and His Son.

Nick,

You rarely offer an analytical reply. All you have left is your canned remarks.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Why cling to myths and speculations?
Rely on what is taught in scripture.

[JustAskin]

TT,

You are living in a nightmare dream world.

I sense your frustration, desperation and antagonisation.

If it were not for your vitrioloc bite backs, your colleague might well now be a true Christian. You do him nor credit.

What's that term I heard recently…”Job's Comforter”?
You are doing him more harm than good in your support for him!

[NickHassan]

Quote (thethinker @ May 14 2010,07:40)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 14 2010,07:27) Hi TT, The sand you stand on to mock from seems to be unstable. Know God and His Son. Nick, You rarely offer an analytical reply. All you have left is your canned remarks. thinker

Hi TT,
Children do not analyse but believe and obey.
Try it.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (JustAskin @ May 14 2010,10:31)

TT, You are living in a nightmare dream world. I sense your frustration, desperation and antagonisation. If it were not for your vitrioloc bite backs, your colleague might well now be a true Christian. You do him nor credit. What's that term I heard recently…”Job's Comforter”? You are doing him more harm than good in your support for him!

Take the beam out JA. You did your buddy Mike no good by providing him with cut n' paste “evidence” that he used as “proof” of your false accusation against me. I basically like Mike and I am displeased that you made him look like a fool. If Mike is smart he will double and triple check before he follows you down that road again. Just as ED J's cut n' paste deceit was not tolerated so yours will not be tolerated. You will eventually be forced out of here by your own shame if you don't raise your standards higher.

Christ be praised because he forgives both Mike's ignorance and your blatant false witness. I forgive you too (gritting my teeth).

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

You said:

Quote

Mike, Paul did not say that the other person (Christ) is not God. If this is what he was saying then he contradicts himself for he explicitly said that Jesus is  “God” in Titus 2:13.

Paul says no such thing in Titus, and you know it.  You studied Greek for 2 years, and you know exactly what Titus 2:13 says.  The Greek actually says,

awaiting     the     happy     hope     and     manifestation     of     the     glory     of the     great     god     and     of savior     of us     of christ     jesus

1.  Does this absolutely prove that Jesus was the “god” in question?  Or could it be translated as, “the great God, AND of [the]savior of us, Christ Jesus”?  Yes or no – could it mean that?

2.  Either way you choose to translate it, it doesn't prove your trinity.  Jehovah foretold through Isaiah that Jesus would be called “mighty god” didn't he?  So even translated your way, seeing that the word “great” and “mighty” mean the same basic thing, it would still fit in nicely with Scripture by fulfilling what God promised through Isaiah.

You said:

Quote

By your logic the Father would not be “Lord”

So if one is called “lord”, no one else can be called “lord”?  Even David, a mere man was called “lord”, thinker.  But you know what Jesus and David were NEVER called?  The LORD Almighty.  What does “almighty” mean, Jack?

You said:

Quote

I don't see Paul denying that Jesus is God in the verses David gives any more than you see Paul denying that the Father is Lord in the verse in the verse I give.

Do you know that Paul is talking about the Father when he says “God”?  Do you know that Paul said, “but for us, there is only ONE God, the Father”?  Do you know that Paul's first priority after being blinded by Jesus was to preach Jesus as the SON OF GOD, NOT GOD HIMSELF?  Think it out, thinker.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

You said earlier:

Quote

By your logic we should conclude that Ananias and Sapphira did not lie to the Father or to Jesus because the Spirit alone is mentioned (Acts 5). The narrative says that they lied to the Holy Spirit.

To which I said:

Quote

You refer to what verses 3 and 4 say.  Tell me, what does verse 9 say?

To which you said:

Quote

Thanks man! They tempted the Spirit of the “Lord” (Christ). Therefore, the “God” to whom they lied was Christ.

Are you really that dense, man?  Or do you just enjoy being obstinate?

It clearly says they had lied to the [Holy] Spirit of the Lord.  Which Lord is the Holy Spirit said to be OF throughout Scripture?  Is it Lord David?  Is it Lord Jesus, who said any blasphemy against him would be forgiven, but not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?  No.  And I'm sure you know that the “Lord” referred to is God.  And verse 9 clarifies what is said in verses 3 and 4,

3 But Peter said: “An‧a‧ni′as, why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field? 4 As long as it remained with you did it not remain yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God.”

9 So Peter said to her: “Why was it agreed upon between YOU [two] to make a test of the spirit of the Lord?

In context, it's easy to see that if you lie to God's Spirit, you are in fact lying to Him in that same exact moment.  It would be like lying to God's ear.  You are at the same time lying to Him.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (thethinker @ May 14 2010,04:24)

JA, You have been proven to be a false accuser and you should be banned from here. You gave Mike a cut n' paste statement by me and he used it and looked like a fool. If Mike is smart he will not trust you after this. I exposed your deceitfulness in my debate with Mike.

Hi Thinker,

None of this was JA's fault. I asked him if he remembered where the “blasphemy” conversation took place. He found what I could not and told me the thread and page. That's all. The rest was all me – and I still don't know what Nick ever had to do with it.

peace and love,
mike

[Is 1:18]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 14 2010,05:57)

You sure you do not want to retract this question?   First of all, Jesus gives the Apostles a divine mandate to baptize men in the “name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. So tell my why would Jesus mention the Holy Spirit here if the Holy Spirit does not have authority? Secondly, you are totally wrong about the Spirit not having “authority or power”. Do you even read my post here or do you just skim over them? Or better yet, have you even read the whole Bible? In a reply to David I mentioned many cases where the Holy Spirit has authority over the church and in fact empowers the church with authority and power. Here are a few scriptures that prove this… At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert,  Mk 1:12 Jesus submits to the Holy Spirits leading here. The Holy Spirit “sent” him. This means the Holy Spirit has authority over him doesn’t it Mike? You should learn the scriptures, because like JA your theology is full of holes. The YLT renders this verse as… And immediately doth the Spirit put him forth to the wilderness, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, “HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you”. John 14:26 If the Holy Spirit is our guide and he is our teacher then he is over us, isn’t he? As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, “**THE HOLY GHOST SAID**, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work WHEREUNTO **I HAVE CALLED THEM**. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid [their] hands on them, they sent [them] away. So they, being “**SENT FORTH BY THE HOLY GHOST**”, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. Acts 13:2, 4 Who separated them and called them? Who sent them forth? Why doesn’t the writer mention the Father or Jesus here? Read Acts Mike and you will see the writer sees no distinction in the Holy Spirit and God, and that is because he is God! Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, “and were **FORBIDDEN OF THE HOLY GHOST** to preach the word in Asia”, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but **THE SPIRIT SUFFERED THEM NOT**. Acts 16:6, 7 The Spirit had authority over Paul here. Why doesn’t the writer mention the Father or Jesus? And just for fun I will quote the NWT in the next passage… Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among “**WHICH THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS APPOINTED YOU OVERSEERS, to shepherd the congregation of God**“, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son. Acts 20:28 NWT Here we see the Holy Spirit appointing the leaders of the church to shepherd the church. But notice here we do see three spoken of and of the three it is the Holy Spirit that appoints!   I would say that is “authority” wouldn't you Mike?

A well reasoned response WJ, and yes – I imagine Mike does indeed regret asking that question.

Quote

I could go on Mike but I will let you choke on those for awhile. Maybe you should retract your statement, or heck maybe you should trash your Arian theology and start all over again.

Of course this is our hope. But are only mandated to present Mike with the truth we cannot make him believe, this is another work of the Spirit.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (JustAskin @ May 13 2010,18:31)

TT, You are living in a nightmare dream world. I sense your frustration, desperation and antagonisation. If it were not for your vitrioloc bite backs, your colleague might well now be a true Christian. You do him nor credit. What's that term I heard recently…”Job's Comforter”? You are doing him more harm than good in your support for him!

Actually Jack has helped me a lot with the Greek and many other Biblical truths, but like Jesus he is hated by the scoffers and unbelievers. Truth has a way of doing that to men that dwell in darkness and who refuse to come to the light, like cockroaches they head into the darkness with all kinds of ad hominems and nasty attacks against the person, works of the flesh which have nothing to do with the Spirit, because they feel safer in the darkness.  

WJ

[Author]

Posts