The Trinity Doctrine

[music4two]

WJ,
I thank you for your prayers.
I have a simple question for you. What does it mean that Jesus came in the flesh?

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 03 2007,16:35)

Quote You say – M42 Explain this using your human logic. Response – Here it is with the right terms applied – Jn 1: 1. In the beginning was the motive and intentions of God. His plan. His intentions had been from the beginnig with Him. His motives and intentions are the very expression of who he is. 2. All the previous things I mentioned were with God from the beginning. 14. And the plan of God came to fruition. And we beheld that fullfilled plan in the Glory of the only begotten son of the Father, full of grace and truth. You say – I Jn 1: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) Can you see a motive and intention? Can your hands handle a motive and intention? response – No, but you can handle and touch  the manefestation of God’s motive and intentions. This has been my point all along. Jesus was the manefestation of the plan, motive and intention of God. John is saying the same thing as John 1. Here it is again – 1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the plan (logos) of life; 2 And this is how we touched it. It was manifested to us. the plan was shown to us in the person of Jesus Christ. We are witnesses of the manifestation of the plan of life and can show you that eternal life that was planned by God from the beginning. — As a side note, try force fitting the name Jesus into verse 1. “and our hands have handled, of the Jesus of life; —–  It does not work! you say – I think I would rather belive him! Fine, let’s believe John – From the book of Revelation, writtten by John. Revelation chapter 1:2 and 9 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 9I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. John the same author as the gospel of John and I John, makes a clear distinction between the “word” of God and the testimony of Jesus. The word “testimony” comes from the root word to bear witness. Notice verse 2 John bore record of the word (logos) of God and of bore witness of Jesus and all the things that he (Jesus ) saw. John bore record of the plan or intentions of God and bore witness of Jesus himself and all that Jesus saw. Verse 9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. John was on the Island of Patmos. Why? For the logos of God. the plan of God and to bear witness of Jesus Christ. The logos is the plan, motive or intention of God. Jesus is the fullfillment of the plan of God, but the name of Jesus cannot be literally exchanged with the word Logos. The Logos is the blueprint. Jesus is the building. It seems John was inspired to make clear his staement in John 1. This also fits clearly with I John 1 M42 This is a huge stretch, but oh well. II Peter 3:16 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.

Get a grip here —
1. Peter was refering to Paul's epistles and so this verse does not apply. We were speaking of John ,1 John, and Revelation
2. What exactly is your motive for employing this verse in conjunction with me?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Get a grip here — 1. Peter was refering to Paul's epistles and so this verse does not apply. We were speaking of John ,1 John, and Revelation 2. What exactly is your motive for employing this verse in conjunction with me? M42 This is a huge stretch, but oh well. II Peter 3:16 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.

as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[music4two]

Well thank you for your judgement of me! How very trinitarian of you! You will forgive me but I will not judge you in like manner.
I wish you know ill will, and I accept you as my brother in the Lord, but I must say somethng to you.
I have noticed a habit pattern that makes me fearfull for you. In our debate ovr the Trinity, I have seen a tendency on your part to ignor any suggestions I make about a study that might shed some light on the subject. When I ask you to do a word study on the word “spirit”, you either ignored it or refused to admit the results of that study. It does not matter if you or I are right on the matter, if you block out anything which you fear might upset your doctrine, you will live within what you know right now without chance of growing into more truth. We are all in a stage of reformation and contstantly learning more truth if we are wise.

You have rarely dealt with any scriptures I have posted. You refuse to study or admit to any truth that might counter your doctrine. Everything you do is based on your doctrine. Everything you see, read, interpret, or speak is filtered through your doctrine. How very very sad. You will never learn any further truth because you have camped.

[music4two]

Quote (music4two @ Jan. 03 2007,23:35)

Well thank you for your judgement of me! How very trinitarian of you! You will forgive me but I will not judge you in like manner. I wish you know ill will, and I accept you as my brother in the Lord, but I must say somethng to you. I have noticed a habit pattern that makes me fearfull for you. In our debate ovr the Trinity, I have seen a tendency on your part to ignor any suggestions I make about a study that might shed some light on the subject. When I ask you to do a word study on the word “spirit”, you either ignored it or refused to admit the results of that study. It does not matter if you or I are right on the matter, if you block out anything which you fear might upset your doctrine, you will live within what you know right now without chance of growing into more truth. We are all in a stage of reformation and contstantly learning more truth if we are wise. You have rarely dealt with any scriptures I have posted. You refuse to study or admit to any truth that might counter your doctrine. Everything you do is based on your doctrine. Everything you see, read, interpret, or speak is filtered through your doctrine. How very very sad. You will never learn any further truth because you have camped.

Opps!!!!!! Meant to say I wish you NO ill will not KNOW ill will. sorry

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

WJ, I thank you for your prayers. I have a simple question for you. What does it mean that Jesus came in the flesh?

M42

Good question.

But I am already sure I have answered this question many times for you. Nevertheless I will try again.

Heb 10:
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The above scriptures was the fulfillment of the prophesied coming of the Messiah, Jesus written about in Pss 47:7

Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me,

Most expected the Messiah to be born as any other man, but as the above shows Jesus pre-existed his coming in the flesh, taking on a human body which God the Father had prepared for him.

A key to understanding Jesus coming as the Messiah is “the offering of his body”, “a body hast thou prepared me:” vrs 5

So if Jesus pre-existed his natural birth, who was he and what was he?

So we look at Heb 1.

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

While these scriptures do not show the pre-existance of Jesus as God, for they are refering to Jesus post ressurection, nevertheless the Father declares Jesus as God, in agreement with Jn 1:1.

Jn 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

These scriptures agree with Hebrews. Look at the wording.

Jn 1:14
We beheld his Glory as of the only begotten of the Father!
Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…

Jn 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Heb 1:10
Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Heb 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

They also agree with Johns 1st Epistle.

1 Jn 1:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

Jesus was/is the Word/Eternal Life who was in the form of God according to Phil 2 thought it not robbery to be equal with God(for he was with God and was God), he humbled himself leaving all of his glory, power and authority that he shared with God, and took on human form and in doing so took on the form of a servant, and humbled himself depending totally on his Fathers will and power, even to the death of the cross.

The true picture of a Shephard leaving all to save the one.

The true example of perfect Love, one who gives all and lays down his life for his friends.

Jn 10:15
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Jn 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

And this same Jesus has now been given all power and authority and a name which is above ALL NAMES, not only in this world but in that which is to come, for it pleased the father that all the fullness of the Godhead dwell in Jesus Bodily.

And so he has sit down at the right hand of God, not below him, nor above him, but at his right hand of Power and has recieved the Glory that he had with the Father as God.

And he Jesus King of Kings and Lord of Lords will crack the eastern sky and will appear in ALL the Glory of his Father with the Holy Angels taking vengeance on them that know not GOD.

Jer 10:10
But the LORD [is] the true God, he [is] the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

Jesus comes this time with a sword!

Isa 40:3
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Matt 3
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Well thank you for your judgement of me! How very trinitarian of you! You will forgive me but I will not judge you in like manner. I wish you know ill will, and I accept you as my brother in the Lord, but I must say somethng to you. I have noticed a habit pattern that makes me fearfull for you. In our debate ovr the Trinity, I have seen a tendency on your part to ignor any suggestions I make about a study that might shed some light on the subject. When I ask you to do a word study on the word “spirit”, you either ignored it or refused to admit the results of that study. It does not matter if you or I are right on the matter, if you block out anything which you fear might upset your doctrine, you will live within what you know right now without chance of growing into more truth. We are all in a stage of reformation and contstantly learning more truth if we are wise. You have rarely dealt with any scriptures I have posted. You refuse to study or admit to any truth that might counter your doctrine. Everything you do is based on your doctrine. Everything you see, read, interpret, or speak is filtered through your doctrine. How

M42
I quote that scripture only when I feel someone is blatantly distorting the truth. You do the same for me if you like.

I mean no harm to you. The word is for us all to not twist or wrest the scriptures.

Also you say I wont study the word Spirit. I have and I know the word is primarily ” pneuma” which means in the greek which comes from
“pneo” Which means…

1) to breathe, to blow

a) of the wind

M42 we are talking about the breath of God, the Spirit of God. His Spirit is much more than just a breath like the wind we know outdoors. The Glorious powerfull Spirit of God is much more as we see in the scriptures. Its Gods Spirit that overshadowed Mary and inpregnated her with the body of Jesus.

We are born again and become sons of God by the Spirit. Now if I am born again by the Spirit and that Spirit is not God, then how can I be a Son of God?

Jesus said the Spirit is like the wind we cant begin to undertsand him. But we should not reduce the Spirit to a mere breath or wind of God when the bible shows that the attributes of the Holy Spirit are far grater than that.

I have nothing else, Im tired. But, again brother I do pray not just for you but for us all that we might come into the unity of the faith.

However I will not compromise what I know to be the truth unless I can be convinced by the Spirit and the scriptures.

You say…

Quote

You have rarely dealt with any scriptures I have posted. You refuse to study or admit to any truth that might counter your doctrine. Everything you do is based on your doctrine. Everything you see, read, interpret, or speak is filtered through your doctrine. How very very sad. You will never learn any further truth because you have camped.

Be honest here. You havnt given or budged a bit. In fact go back over the post and see how many times you paste the same thing.
Most of my responces are written right then and a lot of thought prayer and study goes into them to be sure that I answer correctly.
I have copied and pasted here and there and even refered to other sources sometimes. But most of what I post is not a mirror copy of previous post.

Blessings

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

The diffeence is that the Father and the Son are titles given to specific individules with specific personal names. Your conjecture that Jesus included the name Holy Spirit to indicate the trinity is reading your doctrine into the scripture. It does not say that at all.

M42

Then tell me why did Jesus say it this way? why didnt he say Baptise in My name, or in my Fathers name or in our name?

Tell why M42?

[Mercy]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 04 2007,01:24)

Quote The diffeence is that the Father and the Son are titles given to specific individules with specific personal names. Your conjecture that Jesus included the name Holy Spirit to indicate the trinity is reading your doctrine into the scripture. It does not say that at all. M42 Then tell me why did Jesus say it this way? why didnt he say Baptise in My name, or in my Fathers name or in our name? Tell why M42?

The answer is that Jesus may not have said it at all.

According to both the Bible and history, the New Testament church invoked the name of Jesus at water baptism. Its baptismal formula was “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus,” not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
The Scriptural Record

Every time the Bible records the name or formula associated with an actual baptism in the New Testament church, it describes the name Jesus. All five such accounts occur in the Book of Acts, the history book of the early church. It records that the following people were baptized in Jesus' name.

The Jews, “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).

The Samaritans. “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16).

The Gentiles. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). (The earliest Greek manuscripts that we have say, “In the name of Jesus Christ,” as do most versions today.)

The disciples of John (rebaptized). “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

The Apostles Paul. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Moreover, the Epistles contain a number of references or allusions to baptism in Jesus' name. See Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 2:12; James 2:7.

The only verse of Scripture that anyone could appeal to in support of a threefold baptismal formula is Matthew 28:19, in which Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The word name in this verse is singular, however, indicating that the phrase describes on supreme name by which the one God is revealed, not three names of three distinct persons.

The apostles understood Christ's words as a description of His own name, for they fulfilled His command by baptizing in the name of Jesus. There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and He has one supreme name today (Zechariah 14:9). Jesus is the incarnation of all the fulness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9). Jesus is the name of the Son (Matthew 1:21), Jesus is the name by which the Father is revealed to us (John 5:43; 10:30; 14:9-11), and Jesus is the name in which the Holy Spirit comes (John 14:16-18, 26).

Luke 24:47 is a parallel verse to Matthew 28:19, and describes Jesus as saying that repentance and remission of sins-and baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)-would be preached “in his name.” Jesus is the only saving name, the name in which we receive remission of sins, the highest name made known to us, and the name which we are to say and do all things (Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17).

Thus the one supreme, saving name of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. We are to fulfill the command of that verse as the early church did, by invoking the name of Jesus at baptism.

The Historical Record

Respected historical sources verify that the early Christian church did not use a threefold baptismal formula but invoked the name of Jesus in baptism well into the second and third centuries.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: “The formula used was “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…”

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: “The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'”

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: “At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: “[One explanation is that] the original form of words was “into the name of Jesus Christ” or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.”

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: “The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: “The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries.”

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: “Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'”

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: “It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed.”

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: “The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.”

Christians today should use the biblical baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be baptized by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Source:

http://apostolic-voice.org/tracts/formula.htm

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.”

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not b
e the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.”

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
“The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
“The Trinity.-…is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,…The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),…(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture…” “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19…This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text (“in my name” rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:…”

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
“Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61…Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula…is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas… the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed…” page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
“It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus,”…”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under “Baptism,” says:
“Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
“Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity…”

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +.”

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his “For Christ's sake,” page 103 informs us of these facts: “All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: “The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion.”

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.”

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. “As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule.” Dr Hall further, states: “More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, “In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ.” This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate (“On rebaptism”) shows.”

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. “There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.

According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian)
baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.

The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: “Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, “Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name.”

No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence” is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.

But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.

Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.

Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts.”

Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.

“1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally.”

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development.”

A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”

On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the “Great Commission of Jesus Christ.” Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?

“While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed.”

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Ca
esarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

source:
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

[Oxy]

far out, too much reading bro!

[chicano4571]

if he (Jesus) was equal with God he would know his second coming………..please read the Bible people ………………….:)

[Mercy]

Yes, it may be to much. I just wanted to present some evidence that the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 may have been a Catholic addition to the text.

[david]

Quote

far out, too much reading bro!

But compelling reading.

Even if the renderings in Bibles today are correct, it means very little as far as proving anyhing in regards to the trinity.

MATTHEW 28:19–WHAT DOESN’T IT SAY?
This text does not say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. All it proves is one’s ability to count to three. Yippee. “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” or “Peter, James and John” are mentioned together in groups of three many times, way more than the supposed trinity. The fact that the Father, Son and holy spirit are only found mentioned in the same place only once or twice is almost an argument against the trinity!

McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20:
“This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

If it doesn’t prove any of these things, what does it prove? 1, 2…Yes, you can count to 3. I’ll give you that. Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia, which advocates the trinity, admits that taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity.

As well, if you argue that the holy spirit is listed with the Father and Son and they are persons, so the holy spirit must be a person, then the same rule would apply when it is listed with impersonal things, and that is often.

One example: As to the spirit’s ‘bearing witness’ (Ac 5:32; 20:23), it may be noted that the same thing is said of the water and the blood at 1 John 5:6-8. Maybe the holy spirit is also a trinity with water and blood.

At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name . . . of the holy spirit.” But the word “name” does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say “in the name of the law,” we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament says: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” So baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.

Then again, Mercy may be right in which case Matthew 28:19 really has no reason to be used to support the trinity.

[david]

Quote

Do you no of any Angel or demon or any other living Spirit that has no personality? Why would you reduce Gods Spirit to just a mere force or power?

–WJ

WJ,

Do you know of any angel or demon that is a “gift” from God to us, that is poured out on us, that fill us, that we can be baptized with, that can be distributed and divided, that can be drunk, that can be stirred up in us, that we can be “annointed” with, that, are used in parallel accounts with impersonal things: ie: “full of faith and [Gabriel].” (Acts 6:5) NOPE, DOESN'T WORK.
And the apostle Paul recommended himself as God’s minister “by purity, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by [GABRIEL], by love free from hypocrisy.”—2 Corinthians 6:4-6.
NOPE, AGAIN, DOESN'T WORK.

You are right in saying that living spirits have personalities. This is obvious. But the question is whether the holy spirit is a person?
The characteristics and attributes and the way the holy spirit is often spoken of doesn't fit with “angels and demons.”

The holy spirit is very different.

[david]

This is an excellent question.

It's one they dare not attempt to even look at. Their eyes seem to glaze over it, as if it's not even there. It's uncanny the way this question is invisible to some. (2 cor 4:4)

WHY DOESN’T THE HOLY SPIRIT KNOW WHAT GOD KNOWS? WHERE IS HE IN THIS SCRIPTURE–MARK 13:32?
How could “the Holy Spirit” be kept unaware about this very important event?
Can one member of the Godhead keep a secret from another member while sharing the same eternal and divine “essence” of “Godself”?

MARK 13:32
““Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.”
Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?

The Holy Spirit is conspicuously missing from this statement, just as it is missing from in the many visions seen of God and Jesus:

A PERSON CAN BE PORTRAYED BY THE IMAGE OF A PERSON–AS JEHOVAH AND JESUS ARE, YET FOR SOME REASON….
For some reason, even though we see visions of God as sitting on a throne and Jesus, such representations of God’s holy spirit are never given AND WHENEVER WE LOOK AT SUCH VISIONS, THE HOLY SPIRIT SEEMS TO BE MISSING…FOR SOME REASON.
Daniel, Stephen and John in visions saw representations of the Father and the Son, but never one of the holy spirit. (Acts 7:55,56)
Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit.
No holy spirit is mentioned in this vision because it was not any third person of a Trinity.
In Daniel chapter 7 he describes a wonderful vision Jehovah gave to him: “the Ancient of Days” on his heavenly throne, with a multitude of angels ministering to him. Daniel saw also “someone like a son of man [Jesus],” who was given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.” (Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14) What, though, about the holy spirit? It is not mentioned as a person in this celestial scene.
The final book of the Bible—Revelation, (which means: “unveiling, uncovering)—describes other remarkable heavenly visions. The Supreme Being, Jehovah, is depicted there on his throne, and the Lamb, Jesus Christ, is with him. But, again, the holy spirit is not mentioned as a distinct person. (Revelation, chapters 4–6)
And again in Revelation chapter 21, we again see the Father and Christ, but holy spirit is once again not seen.
So even the final Bible book does not reveal that there are three persons in one god. Jesus repeatedly mentioned being at his Father’s right hand. No one is mentioned as being at his Father’s left hand. And nowhere are three divine persons pictured together in scripture.

It seems whenever there are visions or images given of the Father and Son, for some reason the holy spirit is not seen or represented and definitely not portrayed as a person. Why is that?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

The answer is that Jesus may not have said it at all. According to both the Bible and history, the New Testament church invoked the name of Jesus at water baptism. Its baptismal formula was “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus,” not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” The Scriptural Record Every time the Bible records the name or formula associated with an actual baptism in the New Testament church, it describes the name Jesus. All five such accounts occur in the Book of Acts, the history book of the early church. It records that the following people were baptized in Jesus' name. The Jews, “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). The Samaritans. “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16). The Gentiles. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). (The earliest Greek manuscripts that we have say, “In the name of Jesus Christ,” as do most versions today.) The disciples of John (rebaptized). “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). The Apostles Paul. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Mercy

You say…

Quote

The answer is that Jesus may not have said it at all.

If you are going to make an argument against the Holy Scriptures, you have to show more confidence in the evidence to the readers.

“Jesus may not have said it”, is no good reason for me or any one else to throw out the scripture.

First, all the major translators translate it the same from the earliest copys.

All of them agree.

The Greek reads:

“eiV to onoma tou PatroV kai tou Uiou kai tou Hagiou PneumatoV”
“in the name the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.”

The definite article “tou” (the) before Son and Holy Ghost indicates that they are all different things or persons. The grammatical rule in Greek for determining whether a single thing or person is meant, or different things or persons is meant, when “and” appears, is called the “Granville Sharp rule.” The basic rule is as follows:

“If two nouns of the same case are connected by a “kai” (and) and the article (the) is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first.” {Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament” (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83.}”

The argument that Matt 28:18 should not be there is another blatant attemp of the anti-trinitarian camp to remove any evidence that the trinitarian view is correct.

The argument goes that Jesus couldnt have said it because the desciples Baptised in the name of Jesus. However I see no contradiction here.

Jesus appeared to the disciples many times and spoke many things before his asscension.

And I am quite sure at some point by the Lord himself or the Spirit it was revealed to them. Jesus made a lot of statments that didnt become clear to the disciples until later.

Besides, the fact the scriptures say it, is enough to believe that there is a reason Jesus said it.

I believe Jesus made this statement to again reiterate to the disciples there was another that they were to tarry for, The Holy Spirit.

Before Jesus asscension he says…

Lk 24:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Acts 1:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being 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.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost 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.

I believe the disciples understood the Godhead.

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Paul uses this same word in…
Rom 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The word Godhead in Acts 17:29 is “theios” which means;

a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks

However the word in Rom 1:20 is “theiotes” wich means;

divinity, divine nature

Interesting that most of the modern translations used the word “divine” in the translation of Acts 17:29. When  “theiotes” came from the root word  “theios” .

At any rate both of the words “theios”, and “theiotes” come from the root “theos” which means;
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead,

So Jesus said…
Matt 28:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
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:

Did you notice he said “ALL Power” is given unto him.

They knew all the fullness of the Godhead was in Jesus bodily and that Baptising in his name was baptising in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Mercy if we assume that Matt 28:19 should not be there when all the major translations have it there, then I suppose we should also question John 1:1 which also all the major translators agree on.

Heck lets just make our own Bible so that it agrees with our theology.

Im not trying to be smart my friend, but we should not cast doubt on the Holy Scriptures unless we have sound evidence.

I see no sound evidence that I should ignore Matt 28:19.

Do you?  

[Is 1:18]

Quote (chicano4571 @ Jan. 04 2007,03:13)

if he (Jesus) was equal with God he would know his second coming………..please read the Bible people ………………….:)

Philippians 2:5-7
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Please read the Bible chicano4571, and try not to inane questions.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

But compelling reading. Even if the renderings in Bibles today are correct, it means very little as far as proving anyhing in regards to the trinity. MATTHEW 28:19–WHAT DOESN’T IT SAY? This text does not say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. All it proves is one’s ability to count to three. Yippee. “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” or “Peter, James and John” are mentioned together in groups of three many times, way more than the supposed trinity. The fact that the Father, Son and holy spirit are only found mentioned in the same place only once or twice is almost an argument against the trinity! McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) If it doesn’t prove any of these things, what does it prove? 1, 2…Yes, you can count to 3. I’ll give you that. Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia, which advocates the trinity, admits that taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity. As well, if you argue that the holy spirit is listed with the Father and Son and they are persons, so the holy spirit must be a person, then the same rule would apply when it is listed with impersonal things, and that is often. One example: As to the spirit’s ‘bearing witness’ (Ac 5:32; 20:23), it may be noted that the same thing is said of the water and the blood at 1 John 5:6-8. Maybe the holy spirit is also a trinity with water and blood. At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name . . . of the holy spirit.” But the word “name” does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say “in the name of the law,” we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament says: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” So baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will. Then again, Mercy may be right in which case Matthew 28:19 really has no reason to be used to support the trinity.

David

Should I began to attack your watchtower teachings?

I dont think we want to go there.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Do you know of any angel or demon that is a “gift” from God to us, that is poured out on us, that fill us, that we can be baptized with, that can be distributed and divided, that can be drunk, that can be stirred up in us, that we can be “annointed” with, that, are used in parallel accounts with impersonal things: ie: “full of faith and [Gabriel].” (Acts 6:5) NOPE, DOESN'T WORK. And the apostle Paul recommended himself as God’s minister “by purity, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by [GABRIEL], by love free from hypocrisy.”—2 Corinthians 6:4-6. NOPE, AGAIN, DOESN'T WORK. You are right in saying that living spirits have personalities.  This is obvious.  But the question is whether the holy spirit is a person?   The characteristics and attributes and the way the holy spirit is often spoken of doesn't fit with “angels and demons.”

David you forgot one thing, that Gods Spirit fills all things. Pretty amazing God HUH?

Eph 4:
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

David who is it in the above verses that fills all things.
Is it Jesus?
Is it the Holy Spirit?
Or is it the Father?

Well the answer is Jesus!!!

David, how does Jesus fill all things, how does he indwell his body, the church?

Is it the Spirit of God? Is it the Spirit of Christ?

David please stop going in these circles, and read these scriptures closely.

Jn 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

II Cor 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

David who is the Spirit?

II cor. 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that **Jesus Christ is in you**, except ye be reprobates?

I Cor 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

I Cor 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I Cor 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

II Cor 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Rom 8:
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit devinely and unequelly and wonderfully united together as One!

[Mercy]

Everyday I continue my search for truth.

The one thing that bothers me is the assumption, on the part of some, that it is so “obvious or easy” to the see the truth. This is not directed at any individual, just observations from all sides of the issue.

If we were all honest, we would admit, that every side has a case. Every position has at least some strong points and weak points. Obviously, one must weigh the evidence prayerfully to make a decision.

I do not have an agenda other than the truth. I do not “prefer” one interpretation over the other. I just want the truth. This isn't a competition for me where I get some satisfaction out of properly solving a puzzle faster or better than somebody else. It is an honest search.

[Author]

Posts