- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 04 2011,14:49)
Hi Keith:I am always open to correction if it is God correcting me through the scriptures, but I don't get it.
You say that Matthew 28:19 with the Tri-une formula does in no way contradict what the apostles did.
Did the Apostles baptize in the Tri-une formula?
Is the Holy Ghost the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God?
Marty
Doesn't Mattew 28:19 show us that the Holy Spirit shares a name with the Father and Jesus?This is why you don't like the scirpture because it along with other scriptures show that the Holy Spirit is “Another” and not the Father.
It is simple. The Apostles just heard Jesus say “All authority and power is given to me” (Matt 28:18) and since we know that all the fullness of deity (Strong's G2320 – theotēs the state of being God) resides in Jesus, then for they Apostles to invoke the “singular name” Yeshua” for baptism was also invoking the Tripart formula because it speaks of the Three with a “singular name“. Salvation is only found through the name of Jesus because there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved.
Therefore what ever is done in the name of Jesus is also done in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Nothing is done without the name Jesus.
You can continue denying the scripture from being inspired if you like, but what that tells me is all scripture to you is not “inspired” but only what you agree with.
You do see this don’t you Marty? How can you say you trust the scriptures and will let them correct you if you reject those that do? These things have been settled for centuries and the proof is in every single MS having the Tripart form of Matthew 28:19.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 04 2011,14:49) It is true that one of us needs to be open to correction, and I say “Father if I am wrong about Matthew 28:19 being corrupted” please correct me”. What about you Keith, is there a possibility that you could be the one that is wrong?
Really Marty?No it is not possible I could be wrong if I believe in all the scriptures.
Have you considered since you deny this scripture and others that its possible that you could be wrong about the Trinity?
The Father has given us the inspired scriptures and that is what they are for as you quoted “CORRECTION“.
Why do you pray that God would correct you when you have rejected his word?
Isn't that kind of like the guy that sits on the roof of his house praying that God would save him from the flood and when a boat comes by to pick him up he tells them “no its okay God promised that he would save me?”
WJ
Keith said to merty:
Quote You do see this don’t you Marty? How can you say you trust the scriptures and will let them correct you if you reject those that do?
Simple enough…KJ
Keith said:
Quote This is why you don't like the scirpture because it along with other scriptures show that the Holy Spirit is “Another” and not the Father.
Yeap…a child can understand it.KJ
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 05 2011,06:54) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,06:26) …The question, then, is how the tripartite phrase could be suspect as spurious in the first place? Since
there is not one scrap of manuscript evidence to suggest any variants in regard to the phrase, nor do any
of the early versions exclude it since a number of the early Church Fathers quote the verse with the tripartite
phrase; and since Eusebius, who does quote a shorter version, also quotes the full version with
the phrase, we have no real reason to question its authenticity. It would appear that those who do question
its authenticity do so on the grounds that (1) it represents a trinitarian baptismal formula which developed
later, in the 2nd Century or beyond, and (2) the consistent baptismal formula in Acts does employ
the name of Yeshua alone. But we have shown that there is no necessity to see a “baptismal
formula” in Matthew 28:19, nor some kind of developed “trinitarianism,” notwithstanding that some
have tried to read these later developments back into the text.
But this is not the heart of the issue. Assessments of whether a given text is authentic or not should
be made on the extant manuscript evidence, not on one’s theological presumptions or propensities.
Those who find themselves opposed to the later trinitarian doctrines formulated by the Christian Church
may easily suspect Matthew 28:19 of saying something it actually does not. Reading the text with antitrinitarian
glasses hampers objectivity. As noted above, there is no reason to think that Matthew’s tripartite
phrase flows from a developed trinitarianism. The juxtapositioning of titles such as “Father” or
“God” with “Son” or “Yeshua/Messiah” and “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” is common in the Apostolic Scriptures.
We may note the following by way of example:
26. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew in Albright and Freedman, eds. The Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1971), pp. 362–
63.
Hi Jack:You have already admitted that if the Tri-une formula in Matthew 28:19 pertains to water baptism “the Trinitarians cannot win”. Isn't that what you said, Jack?
WJ knows that it is speaking of water baptism, and we all know that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,Yeap that's what I said and I still maintain it. Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism and Keith CANNOT win on that line of reasoning. If Matthew 28:19 is about water baptism, which it ddefinitely is not, then we clearly have a contradiction in the scriptures for the disciples baptized not in the tri-une name but in the name of Jesus alone.
Keith has won on the TEXTUAL evidence. But note that the statements I highlighted in the source have to do with how the texts reads in relation to the tri-une name and NOT how it is to be interpreted regarding water baptism.
For you to talk to me about water baptism when the statements I highlighted have nothing to do with water baptism but about the textual evidence for the tri-une name is just another example of how you want to keep denying the textual evidence for the tri-une name.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,07:37) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 04 2011,14:49)
Hi Keith:I am always open to correction if it is God correcting me through the scriptures, but I don't get it.
You say that Matthew 28:19 with the Tri-une formula does in no way contradict what the apostles did.
Did the Apostles baptize in the Tri-une formula?
Is the Holy Ghost the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God?
Marty
Doesn't Mattew 28:19 show us that the Holy Spirit shares a name with the Father and Jesus?This is why you don't like the scirpture because it along with other scriptures show that the Holy Spirit is “Another” and not the Father.
It is simple. The Apostles just heard Jesus say “All authority and power is given to me” (Matt 28:18) and since we know that all the fullness of deity (Strong's G2320 – theotēs the state of being God) resides in Jesus, then for they Apostles to invoke the “singular name” Yeshua” for baptism was also invoking the Tripart formula because it speaks of the Three with a “singular name“. Salvation is only found through the name of Jesus because there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved.
Therefore what ever is done in the name of Jesus is also done in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Nothing is done without the name Jesus.
You can continue denying the scripture from being inspired if you like, but what that tells me is all scripture to you is not “inspired” but only what you agree with.
You do see this don’t you Marty? How can you say you trust the scriptures and will let them correct you if you reject those that do? These things have been settled for centuries and the proof is in every single MS having the Tripart form of Matthew 28:19.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 04 2011,14:49) It is true that one of us needs to be open to correction, and I say “Father if I am wrong about Matthew 28:19 being corrupted” please correct me”. What about you Keith, is there a possibility that you could be the one that is wrong?
Really Marty?No it is not possible I could be wrong if I believe in all the scriptures.
Have you considered since you deny this scripture and others that its possible that you could be wrong about the Trinity?
The Father has given us the inspired scriptures and that is what they are for as you quoted “CORRECTION“.
Why do you pray that God would correct you when you have rejected his word?
Isn't that kind of like the guy that sits on the roof of his house praying that God would save him from the flood and when a boat comes by to pick him up he tells them “no its okay God promised that he would save me?”
WJ
No Keith:The Holy Spirit is not “another”. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God my Father, and that is sufficient proof that Matthew 28:19 is not what Jesus said.
Here I will post the scriptures again to show that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God my Father and not a “Third Person” of a Tri-une God:
Quote 1 Corinthians 2:7-13 (King James Version) 7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Quote John 14:10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
15If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
The comforter is the Holy Ghost and by the scriptures posted above it is clear that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God my Father, and not a “Third person of a Tri-une God”.
Quote John 14:26
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.Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary. Again showing that this is not some “Third Person” of a Tri-une God.
Quote Matthew 1:19-21 (King James Version) 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Scripture must be line upon line and precept upon precept, and Matthew 28:19 is not consistent w
ith what the rest of the scriptures state, and again, the Holy Spirit as if have shown you by the scriptures is not a “Third Person” of a Tri-une God.Yes, the Holy Spirit was dwelling within Jesus. The scripture states that God has spoken to humanity through His Son, but when Jesus was resurrected, he was exalted to his position as head of the church and stated “All power over heaven and earth has been given unto me”, and so, no it would not make sense for him to say baptize in the Tri-une formula, and the fact that the Apostles did not baptize that way bears this out, and the scripture that I posted from Luke also bears this out.
Also, the Holy Spirit reveals the thoughts of God as shown by 1 Co 2:7-13.
And so, tell me Keith, based on the scriptures that I have given you. Is the Holy Spirit “The Third Person of a Tri-une God”?
I pray that God will correct me because it is possisble that I can make a mistake, and God has corrected me many a time because He is my Father and He loves me, and if He has shown me that He is going to ordain me as an overseer in the church, I would think that I would be qualified to teach His Word at that time but apparently, there is no possibility that you could make a mistake or misinterpret scripture. That is the height of all conceit.
As I have stated before, if God confirms what I teach at the time that I am ordained with the type of miracles that He did in the ministry of my Lord, Jesus and that of the Apostles, it will be Him stating that I am correct in what I teach, and so, perhaps, then some will admit they have misinterpreted scripture. Maybe, but maybe not because some people do not make mistakes.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,09:55) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 05 2011,06:54) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,06:26) …The question, then, is how the tripartite phrase could be suspect as spurious in the first place? Since
there is not one scrap of manuscript evidence to suggest any variants in regard to the phrase, nor do any
of the early versions exclude it since a number of the early Church Fathers quote the verse with the tripartite
phrase; and since Eusebius, who does quote a shorter version, also quotes the full version with
the phrase, we have no real reason to question its authenticity. It would appear that those who do question
its authenticity do so on the grounds that (1) it represents a trinitarian baptismal formula which developed
later, in the 2nd Century or beyond, and (2) the consistent baptismal formula in Acts does employ
the name of Yeshua alone. But we have shown that there is no necessity to see a “baptismal
formula” in Matthew 28:19, nor some kind of developed “trinitarianism,” notwithstanding that some
have tried to read these later developments back into the text.
But this is not the heart of the issue. Assessments of whether a given text is authentic or not should
be made on the extant manuscript evidence, not on one’s theological presumptions or propensities.
Those who find themselves opposed to the later trinitarian doctrines formulated by the Christian Church
may easily suspect Matthew 28:19 of saying something it actually does not. Reading the text with antitrinitarian
glasses hampers objectivity. As noted above, there is no reason to think that Matthew’s tripartite
phrase flows from a developed trinitarianism. The juxtapositioning of titles such as “Father” or
“God” with “Son” or “Yeshua/Messiah” and “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” is common in the Apostolic Scriptures.
We may note the following by way of example:
26. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew in Albright and Freedman, eds. The Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1971), pp. 362–
63.
Hi Jack:You have already admitted that if the Tri-une formula in Matthew 28:19 pertains to water baptism “the Trinitarians cannot win”. Isn't that what you said, Jack?
WJ knows that it is speaking of water baptism, and we all know that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,Yeap that's what I said and I still maintain it. Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism and Keith CANNOT win on that line of reasoning. If Matthew 28:19 is about water baptism, which it ddefinitely is not, then we clearly have a contradiction in the scriptures for the disciples baptized not in the tri-une name but in the name of Jesus alone.
Keith has won on the TEXTUAL evidence. But note that the statements I highlighted in the source have to do with how the texts reads in relation to the tri-une name and NOT how it is to be interpreted regarding water baptism.
For you to talk to me about water baptism when the statements I highlighted have nothing to do with water baptism but about the textual evidence for the tri-une name is just another example of how you want to keep denying the textual evidence for the tri-une name.
Jack
Hi Jack:Ask Keith, if the Tri-une formula refers to water baptism, and if he says, yes, then by your own admission, he cannot win because the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only.
Also,Trinitarians today use the Tri-une formula to baptize believers, and so, we know that this is not scriptual since the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only.
But as I said to you before, it is not about winning a debate, but about teaching the Word of God in truth.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 04 2011,03:26) Click on the link I have provided for ALL the fragment quotes in your video source in their FULL CONTEXT. http://www.torahresource.com/English….ism.pdf When are you going to learn Mikey?
Hi Jack,The Tyndale source you quoted doesn't shed any light on this. It merely admits the problems some have with this scripture, and why. Its only “solution” is to say that maybe the early Christians didn't baptise with this formula because Jesus didn't mean it as a “baptismal formula”.
What?
Then why is it one now?As far as the link you posted, it is the same link Keith already posted, and I quoted many things from that link showing how it is incredibly likely the words were added in later.
I would like to check out page 263 of the Catholic Encyclopedia that reportedly has the words of Pope Benedict XVI talking about the triune formula being a later invention of the Catholic Church. I haven't found this quote yet, as shown in the video, but I did find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).
Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
I find it very telling that they clearly identify the problem (the part I underlined). This is the very problem many of us have with this scripture. But I find it extremely short sided and biased of them to dismiss the many CLEAR scriptures that they mention which refer to baptizing in Jesus' name only, and instead base their “justification” on their own wording of only one scripture, Acts 19:3, which the NIV translates as:
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
But it's interesting to delve into this subject, that's for sure.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,09:11) That’s it Mike, I am done with you. I now know I am wasting my time, because no matter what you will deny scriptures that disagree with you. This is a scriptural debate and Matthew 28:19 is scripture, and unless you can present evidence it is not, but only claim it is corrupt, then you lose the war!
Really Keith?
Listen to yourself! You all of a sudden start claiming that all humans are the same being to “save” your flawed doctrine. Yet I'm not allowed to voice concern over a scripture that has FOR ALMOST 2000 YEARS caused controversy? That's too rich, man! Not to mention that this scripture, even IF left alone as is, still doesn't say anything at all about some “trinity Godhead”.
You are a precious card, Keith.
mike
Marty said:
Quote Hi Jack: Ask Keith, if the Tri-une formula refers to water baptism, and if he says, yes, then by your own admission, he cannot win because the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only.
Also,Trinitarians today use the Tri-une formula to baptize believers, and so, we know that this is not scriptual since the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only.
But as I said to you before, it is not about winning a debate, but about teaching the Word of God in truth.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,Keith and I disagree that Matthew 28:19 is about water baptism. I wish he would not take that line of reasoning. Water baptism was the external symbol of the real baptism. Jesus commanded the disciples to do the REAL baptism which was making disciples. But Keith still wins on the textual evidence for the tri-une name and you keep evading this.
Until you show proof from the WORD OF GOD by way of a manuscript inwhich the triune name is absent you are speaking the word of men.
KEITH HAS WON SIR. GET A GRIP!
Jack
Mike said:
Quote You all of a sudden start claiming that all humans are the same being to “save” your flawed doctrine.
Mike,Your metaphysics are not the metaphysic of the scripture. Paul said we are all of the earth and therefore earth (1 Corinthians 15). The earth is ONE BEING MIKE!
God's gives each of us individuality.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,14:47) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 04 2011,03:26) Click on the link I have provided for ALL the fragment quotes in your video source in their FULL CONTEXT. http://www.torahresource.com/English….ism.pdf When are you going to learn Mikey?
Hi Jack,The Tyndale source you quoted doesn't shed any light on this. It merely admits the problems some have with this scripture, and why. Its only “solution” is to say that maybe the early Christians didn't baptise with this formula because Jesus didn't mean it as a “baptismal formula”.
What?
Then why is it one now?As far as the link you posted, it is the same link Keith already posted, and I quoted many things from that link showing how it is incredibly likely the words were added in later.
I would like to check out page 263 of the Catholic Encyclopedia that reportedly has the words of Pope Benedict XVI talking about the triune formula being a later invention of the Catholic Church. I haven't found this quote yet, as shown in the video, but I did find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).
Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
I find it very telling that they clearly identify the problem (the part I underlined). This is the very problem many of us have with this scripture. But I find it extremely short sided and biased of them to dismiss the many CLEAR scriptures that they mention which refer to baptizing in Jesus' name only, and instead base their “justification” on their own wording of only one scripture, Acts 19:3, which the NIV translates as:
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
But it's interesting to delve into this subject, that's for sure.
mike
Mike,Keith has already finished you off by noting that the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Church changed their practice. This says nothing about the written text does it? So you read it wrong.
I disagree with you about the Tyndale source. Until you show a manuscript inwhich the triune name is absent I don't have to listen to anything you have to say. You have repeatedly failed to produce the one piece of evidence you need to prove your contention beyond any doubt. Where is the manuscript Mikey?
Jack
While you guys fight it out about names and titles I say, like John the Baptist himself said, my baptism of water is a preliminary to the great Baptism of Truth that is coming. Water Baptism is completely superseded by the spirit Baptism, being whelmed with the water of the words of God Eph.5:26, sanctified and cleansed by the washing of the water of the words of God. Actual H2o water has no spiritual effect one way or the other. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit of God through the words of Jesus is the infilling, Baptism and emersion of the Holy Spirit/God's words. A shower cleanses the physical body for a day. The Spirit words of God, when understood, cleanses and sanctifies for eternity. IMO, TK
Mike said to Keith:
Quote You all of a sudden start claiming that all humans are the same being to “save” your flawed doctrine.
TO ALL:Beings in the PRIMARY sense are substances.
Quote The situation is the same, Aristotle claims, with the term ‘being’. It, too, has a primary sense as well as related senses in which it applies to other things because they are appropriately related to things that are called ‘beings’ in the primary sense. The beings in the primary sense are substances; the beings in other senses are the qualities, quantities, etc., that belong to substances. An animal, e.g., a horse, is a being, and so is a color, e.g, white, a being. But a horse is a being in the primary sense — it is a substance — whereas the color white (a quality) is a being only because it qualifies some substance. An account of the being of anything that is, therefore, will ultimately have to make some reference to substance. Hence, the science of being qua being will involve an account of the central case of beings — substances.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries….iQuaBeiBeings in the PRIMARY sense are substances. Substance refers to essential nature or qualities (Webster's).
So all humans are the same being in the sense that they are the same substance.
Mike denies the metaphysics of scripture and of the philosophers. He denies also the definitions of the lexographers. In other words, Mike has his own language and definitions of things and he wants us to just accept what he says. No sale Mike!
KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,09:40) What are you saying Pierre? Are you saying that scriptures contradict themselves?
WJ
WJof cause not ,but it is strange that Math;28;19 does not appears in the Hebrew gospel,and that it make the trinitarian so happy,
all know that the holy spirit is not a person,(based on all scriptures)and that there is only two baptism the one of John and the one in the name of Christ Jesus,
one is for the repentance of the Jews,the other one is for receiving forgiveness of our sins and so enter the reconciliation process with God,by changing our lives into the will of Gods holiness ,in other words to become holy like God is holy,can that be done ? yes if we stop pursuing wickedness,
and change by applying Gods words to our lives to the fullestso baptism as very little to do with being saved,
only organized religion like it because of there proselyte culture.and love for division.(the devil like it to)
Pierre
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,02:40) God's gives each of us individuality.
Yes Jack,God gave EACH of us individuality………….INCLUDING HIS SON JESUS. Jesus is an individual, self contained being who is different from the God who begot him.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,02:48) Mike, Keith has already finished you off by noting that the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Church changed their practice. This says nothing about the written text does it? So you read it wrong.
Jack,If they “changed their practice”, then that means that they too USED TO baptise into the name of Jesus. Why would they do that in opposition to Jesus' command in 28:19? Why would all of the disciples baptise in opposition to Jesus' command in 28:19?
Now, if the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that they “changed the formula” in the 2nd century, what is to say they didn't also “doctor the Book” at this time? We know they doctored 1 John 5:8 in the 14th century. And we know that someone added the word “God” to Jude 1:4 at some point, right?
Listen to what they say, Jack:
It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
Listen to how they justify this “unlikelyness”:
In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
But I didn't post enough of Acts 19 last night…………here's the rest:
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
So while the Catholics claim that 19:3 shows that Paul baptised in the triune formula, it really doesn't, does it? In fact, it show just the opposite. Because after hearing they did NOT receive the Holy Spirit, Paul proceeded to baptise them in the name of JESUS, and then they DID receive the Holy Spirit.
Which leaves us with their own haunting question still unanswered:
It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,04:22) So all humans are the same being in the sense that they are the same substance.
Hi Jack,I've yet to receive and answer from you:
How many human beings are on this planet?
mike
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 05 2011,07:30) WJ of cause not ,but it is strange that Math;28;19 does not appears in the Hebrew gospel,and that it make the trinitarian so happy,
all know that the holy spirit is not a person,(based on all scriptures)and that there is only two baptism the one of John and the one in the name of Christ Jesus,
one is for the repentance of the Jews,the other one is for receiving forgiveness of our sins and so enter the reconciliation process with God,by changing our lives into the will of Gods holiness ,in other words to become holy like God is holy,can that be done ? yes if we stop pursuing wickedness,
and change by applying Gods words to our lives to the fullestso baptism as very little to do with being saved,
only organized religion like it because of there proselyte culture.and love for division.(the devil like it to)
Pierre
Well said Pierre.When does the Hebrew Gospel you refer to date back to? What is the oldest ms we have of this?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 04 2011,22:58) Yet I'm not allowed to voice concern over a scripture that has FOR ALMOST 2000 YEARS caused controversy? That's too rich, man!
MikeHa Ha again.
Like I said this is proof that you doubt the scriptures which means that no matter what proof from scripture that is put to you that the Trinity is found in the scriptures you will deny it.
John 1:1 is proof that Jesus is God when you take it in context of 1:3 “not one thing came into being” without Jesus yet the Hebrew scriptures tell us God alone created all things.
These two scriptures alone must gnaw at you.
Thanks for the compliment that I am a “precious card”.
WJ
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 05 2011,07:30) WJ of cause not ,but it is strange that Math;28;19 does not appears in the Hebrew gospel,and that it make the trinitarian so happy,
What Hebrew Gospel are you talking about. Matthew 28:19 was written by a Hebrew who followed Jesus and heard his words first hand.Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 05 2011,07:30) yes if we stop pursuing wickedness,
and change by applying Gods words to our lives to the fullest
Gods word also includes Matthew 28:19 doesn't it!WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
