- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,04:49) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 16 2011,12:37)
Then you will acknowledge that the scriptures I posted show that the Holy Ghost is not ''THE THIRD PERSON OF A TRI-UNE GOD”.And because they do show this, I can be certain that Matthew 28:19 (The Tri-une formula) is not what Jesus said.
Yes MartyYou have made it abundantly clear that you have rejected Jesus words over your misconceptions of the Apostles teachings and over the clear words of our Lord.
WJ
Hi Keith:I am not going to argue with you about this. The Word of God will speak for itself.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Mar. 16 2011,16:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,04:49) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 16 2011,12:37)
Then you will acknowledge that the scriptures I posted show that the Holy Ghost is not ''THE THIRD PERSON OF A TRI-UNE GOD”.And because they do show this, I can be certain that Matthew 28:19 (The Tri-une formula) is not what Jesus said.
Yes MartyYou have made it abundantly clear that you have rejected Jesus words over your misconceptions of the Apostles teachings and over the clear words of our Lord.
WJ
Hi Keith:I am not going to argue with you about this. The Word of God will speak for itself.
Love in Christ,
Marty
True!But what word of God are you talking about? The Bible? According to you what is in the Bible is not “all” Gods word, right?
You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Jesus own words that are found in this Bible you call the “word of God”.
WJ
Marty said:
Quote Hi Keith: I am not going to argue with you about this.The Word of God will speak for itself.
Keith replied:
Quote But what word of God are you talking about? The Bible? According to you what is in the Bible is not “all” Gods word, right? You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Jesus own words that are found in this Bible you call the “word of God”.
Yeah Marty what word of God are you talking about? Are you talking about that fathom manuscript that no one has never seen and which you are waiting for to be discovered?Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 21 2011,14:23) Are you talking about that fathom manuscript that no one has never seen
Did you mean “phantom”?
To all,
It is my opinion that this thread belongs in the forum titled “The Bible” since it is a debate betwen early manuscripts of scripture”.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 22 2011,15:11) To all, It is my opinion that this thread belongs in the forum titled “The Bible” since it is a debate betwen early manuscripts of scripture”.
Kerwin,You would be correct if there was a manuscript with a variant reading of Matthew 28:19. But there is no variant reading so this topic may remain right here. Marty and Mike's denial of the authenticity of the tri-une name in Matthew 28:19 is not based in any MSS evidence.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 22 2011,10:45) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 22 2011,15:11) To all, It is my opinion that this thread belongs in the forum titled “The Bible” since it is a debate betwen early manuscripts of scripture”.
Kerwin,You would be correct if there was a manuscript with a variant reading of Matthew 28:19. But there is no variant reading so this topic may remain right here. Marty and Mike's denial of the authenticity of the tri-une name in Matthew 28:19 is not based in any MSS evidence.
KJ
True JackTo question the “authenticity” of the scriptures today with all the MSS and works we have is a “slippery slope” for those who doubt the inspiration of the scriptures.
The unbelieving world claims the Bible is in errror and therefore rejects the truths therein.
As believers we hold on to Peter and Pauls attitude to all the written scriptures…
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:15, 16
Some do not let the scriptures “correct” or “instruct” them but rather they feel a need to correct the scriptures to line up with their carnal, false doctrines of men.
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; “in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction”. 2 Peter 3:16
Some have chosen not to accept all the scriptures which according to the words above would be “unwise” and it makes them “unlearned” and “unstable” and the end result is they “wrest” the scriptures to their own destruction.
Sad indeed!
Blessings Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,07:24) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 22 2011,10:45) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 22 2011,15:11) To all, It is my opinion that this thread belongs in the forum titled “The Bible” since it is a debate betwen early manuscripts of scripture”.
Kerwin,You would be correct if there was a manuscript with a variant reading of Matthew 28:19. But there is no variant reading so this topic may remain right here. Marty and Mike's denial of the authenticity of the tri-une name in Matthew 28:19 is not based in any MSS evidence.
KJ
True JackTo question the “authenticity” of the scriptures today with all the MSS and works we have is a “slippery slope” for those who doubt the inspiration of the scriptures.
The unbelieving world claims the Bible is in errror and therefore rejects the truths therein.
As believers we hold on to Peter and Pauls attitude to all the written scriptures…
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:15, 16
Some do not let the scriptures “correct” or “instruct” them but rather they feel a need to correct the scriptures to line up with their carnal, false doctrines of men.
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; “in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction”. 2 Peter 3:16
Some have chosen not to accept all the scriptures which according to the words above would be “unwise” and it makes them “unlearned” and “unstable” and the end result is they “wrest” the scriptures to their own destruction.
Sad indeed!
Blessings Keith
Keith,On the freak Greek thread Mike posted that he has successfully disproven Christ's divinity for the past two yars. Yet he is denying the authenticity of a scripture.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 22 2011,07:23) Marty said: Quote Hi Keith: I am not going to argue with you about this.The Word of God will speak for itself.
Keith replied:
Quote But what word of God are you talking about? The Bible? According to you what is in the Bible is not “all” Gods word, right? You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Jesus own words that are found in this Bible you call the “word of God”.
Yeah Marty what word of God are you talking about? Are you talking about that fathom manuscript that no one has never seen and which you are waiting for to be discovered?Jack
Hi Jack:You have already stated that if Tri-une formula relative to baptism in Matthew 28:19 means water baptism then Trinitarians lose.
And so, that is what Trinitarians believe and so, as you yourself have stated they lose.
When Jesus was going to ascend into heaven, he stated: “All power over heaven and earth has been given unto me” and so, it does not make sense that he would then say now “go and baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And if this Tri-une formula dictates that the Holy Ghost is “The Third Person of a Tri-une God” as Trinitarians interpret it to mean that is a lie because the scriptures state that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God my Father.
And the scriptures are line upon line, and so how do you reconcile Matthew 28:19 and 2 John 1:9 and John 17:21 and the fact that the Apostles did not use the Tri-une formula to baptize any one but baptized in the name of Jesus. And in addition, the YLT puts the Tri-une formula in parenthesis.
I don't need a manuscript to know that Matthew 28:19 has been altered because it does not line up with the other scriptures.
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty,
The disciples baptised the faithful in water for the forgiveness of their sins previous to the Great Commandment.
All I know of this alternative translation is Eusebius is said to have quoted from it. He being a Trinitarian did not see it as contradicting the Trinitarian tenet.
Quote In addition to the early versions, citations of Biblical passages by early Christians are also sometimes used to assist in reconstructing the original Greek text. For example, Eusebius (IV century) quotes Matthew 28 several times, each time with Jesus saying, “baptizing them into my name” instead of the three part formula. This is important because Eusebius was a strong believer in the Trinity doctrine; the common rendering of the passage would have supported his case. Since the quotations from Eusebius are earlier than any extant Greek manuscript of Mt 28:19, it is distinctly possible that his quote represents the original reading. Of course, patristic citations should not be used to contradict an established reading without weighing the evidence.
Here is my source.
Marty said;
Quote You have already stated that if Tri-une formula relative to baptism in Matthew 28:19 means water baptism then Trinitarians lose.
Marty,You're taking me out of context AGAIN. Please stop doing that! I said that trinitarians lose if they argue that Matthew 28:19 was the formula for water baptism because the apostles clearly did not use that formula. I have also said that Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism at all and so there is no disconnect between what the text says and what the apostles did.
I EMPHATICALLY said that Keith HAS WON on the MSS. evidence. The one argument has to do with interpretation. The other has to do with INSPIRATION. KEITH WINS ON INSPIRATION!
I will now add some clarification. The anti-trinitarians ALSO cannot win their argument from the formula the apostles used because the tri-une name 'formula' in Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism. Baptism in both Matthew 28:19 and in the acts of the apostles MUST have the same reference to water for any side to win.
If you make a sweeping statement again misrepresenting me as saying that the trinitarians lose am just going to redirect you to THIS post. I will not repeat myself again.
NOW PLEASE COUGH UP THE MANUSCRIPT INWHICH THE TRI-UNE NAME IS OMITTED IN MATTHEW 28:19.
Jack
Marty said:
Quote I don't need a manuscript to know that Matthew 28:19 has been altered because it does not line up with the other scriptures. Love in Christ,
Marty,
Please stop saying “Love IN CHRIST” to me. You cannot be 'in Christ' and deny His words. You have not proven that Matthew 28:19 is about water baptism.
Again, you are misusing Christ's name and it hurts me. Just say, “Love Marty” in your salutation.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,02:41) Marty said; Quote You have already stated that if Tri-une formula relative to baptism in Matthew 28:19 means water baptism then Trinitarians lose.
Marty,You're taking me out of context AGAIN. Please stop doing that! I said that trinitarians lose if they argue that Matthew 28:19 was the formula for water baptism because the apostles clearly did not use that formula. I have also said that Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism at all and so there is no disconnect between what the text says and what the apostles did.
I EMPHATICALLY said that Keith HAS WON on the MSS. evidence. The one argument has to do with interpretation. The other has to do with INSPIRATION. KEITH WINS ON INSPIRATION!
I will now add some clarification. The anti-trinitarians ALSO cannot win their argument from the formula the apostles used because the tri-une name 'formula' in Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism. Baptism in both Matthew 28:19 and in the acts of the apostles MUST have the same reference to water for any side to win.
If you make a sweeping statement again misrepresenting me as saying that the trinitarians lose am just going to redirect you to THIS post. I will not repeat myself again.
NOW PLEASE COUGH UP THE MANUSCRIPT INWHICH THE TRI-UNE NAME IS OMITTED IN MATTHEW 28:19.
Jack
Hi Jack:I don't care if you emphatically said anything. You are not God, and this is not about winning or losing, but about teaching the Word of God in truth.
And as I said, I don't need a manuscript to know that Matthew 28:19 has been altered for the reasons that I have already given.
And also, as I said to Keith, I am not going to argue this with you. I will let the Word of God speak for itself. The scriptures must be line upon line and precept upon precept.
Love always tells the truth, and God is showing me not continue debating this with you or Keith. It is a useless cause.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 23 2011,16:22) Love always tells the truth, and God is showing me not continue debating this with you or Keith. It is a useless cause.
MartyOf course it is a useless to you because when you set out to speak of scriptures being “line upon line” yet you reject one of the lines and blot it out because of your own pride and doctrine.
For you to try and teach that the Bible is the Word of God and you hold to it over mans opinions is rediclulously hillarious and sad at the same time.
If I were you I wouldn't debate that either. You will find out when you start trying to teach your Gods people in your church that the Bible is a corrupt book.
WJ
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 23 2011,16:22)
I don't care if you emphatically said anything. You are not God, and this is not about winning or losing, but about teaching the Word of God in truth.
MartyWhat Word of God? The Bible that you think is corrupt?
WJ
Marty said:
Quote And as I said, I don't need a manuscript to know that Matthew 28:19 has been altered for the reasons that I have already given.
I showed that some could argue that the narratives which say that the disciples baptized in Jesus' name were corrupted. I showed also that it could be argued that Peter erred in baptizing in Jesus' name.When you say that you don't need a manuscript, then you leave open the possibility for me to argue that I don't need a manuscript to say that portions of the Acts narrative were altered. If Matthew 28:19 may have been subjectable to alteration, then so may other portions of scripture.
Jack
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 23 2011,15:23) Marty, The disciples baptised the faithful in water for the forgiveness of their sins previous to the Great Commandment.
All I know of this alternative translation is Eusebius is said to have quoted from it. He being a Trinitarian did not see it as contradicting the Trinitarian tenet.
Quote In addition to the early versions, citations of Biblical passages by early Christians are also sometimes used to assist in reconstructing the original Greek text. For example, Eusebius (IV century) quotes Matthew 28 several times, each time with Jesus saying, “baptizing them into my name” instead of the three part formula. This is important because Eusebius was a strong believer in the Trinity doctrine; the common rendering of the passage would have supported his case. Since the quotations from Eusebius are earlier than any extant Greek manuscript of Mt 28:19, it is distinctly possible that his quote represents the original reading. Of course, patristic citations should not be used to contradict an established reading without weighing the evidence.
Here is my source.
Hi Kerwin:Thanks for the information.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,08:45) Marty said: Quote And as I said, I don't need a manuscript to know that Matthew 28:19 has been altered for the reasons that I have already given.
I showed that some could argue that the narratives which say that the disciples baptized in Jesus' name were corrupted. I showed also that it could be argued that Peter erred in baptizing in Jesus' name.When you say that you don't need a manuscript, then you leave open the possibility for me to argue that I don't need a manuscript to say that portions of the Acts narrative were altered. If Matthew 28:19 may have been subjectable to alteration, then so may other portions of scripture.
Jack
Hi Jack:You can argue whatever you want. You could not support that arguement with scripture. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby men can be saved.
I have scripture to justify what I have stated.
Can you give me a scripture which states that the Holy Ghost is “The Third Person of a Tri-une God”.
If so, show it to me and that will end all contorversy, but if you cannot, then I do not want to continue with this useless discussion.
Marty
Jack
Marty is right. We shouldn't continue this conversation with him because it is useless to talk about scriptures when someone denys that some of them are inspired.
WJ
Hi All
Here is more information about the “tripart model” of Matthew 28:19 of which I agree and is my understanding of the verse, emphasis mine…
The Society (Jehovah Witnesses) references about four passages in the New Testament where the three persons of the Trinity are manifested: 2 Corinthians 13:13-14; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Matthew 3:16 and 28:19. Matthew 28:19 is especially worth noting: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.…”
“Upon examination of this passage, noting that the definite article (the) is placed in front of each of the persons of the Trinity, one can see how each of the persons are demonstrated as being distinct from each other.” When one considers the fact that the word “name” is singular and yet these persons are revealed as being distinct from each other, the plurality within unity of the Trinity is recognizable. “Not only does Matthew 28:19 clearly communicate the concept of composite unity within the Trinity, but by stating that believers are to baptize “in the name” of each of these persons, it indicates that each person of the Trinity possesses equal power and authority.” One might wonder how the fact that baptism is to be performed in the “name” of these persons indicates that their power and authority is equal. “This question can be answered by considering the following scenario: What is Scripture teaching us when it states that believers are to pray in the name of Jesus? Since it is obvious that by praying in the name of Jesus, we are actually praying in the power and authority of Christ, we can conclude that Scripture is communicating the fact that by baptizing “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” we are actually doing this in the power and authority of each of these persons. Thus, it is evident that Matthew 28:19 is one of the most vivid declarations of the Trinity found in the New Testament.”
While the oneness and unity of the persons of the Trinity may not be as conclusively revealed in the other passages used to support the Trinity, when one considers the whole testimony of Scripture on this issue, it becomes evident that the Trinity is nevertheless a Biblical concept, for we know from Scripture that the Father is called God (Philippians 2:11), the Son is called God (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; John 1:1, 18; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8), and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17), and yet there is only one God. Source
The more one studies the beliefs of the Watch Tower Society the more one realizes how the JWs are diabolically apposed to “Orthodox Christianity” whose roots go back to the 1st century, from the original Apostles, the scriptures and teachings of the Forefathers throughout the centuries.
That is why the majority of Christendom labels their religion as a cult whose roots are deeply attached to the “Arians” who in the days of the saints were considered “heretics” and to this day it still stands true.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
