- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Guest @ May 14 2004,02:07) This site is a bunch of heretics who deny Christ John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. John 1:14 THE WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us… 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, WHO CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver AND AN ANTICHRIST.
The word was god.. The word became flesh.. He who confess “not” that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh = Antichrist.
I am a christian and I do not deny Jesus as Gods messiah. Scripture says that the bible would be tampered with. That being so I work to bring christians the truth. All scipture in our bibles that show trinitarism to be a bible truth has been tampered with. I have more proof than I have given here because Im writting a book. The book will be called (the book of Michael) it will be some time before Im finnished. Among the many things ill be writting about I will also revile The hidden name of God and also Jesus name of who he was called by before he was born into this world. There are two kinds of truth seekers, those who seek Gods truth and those who seek their own truth.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2004,22:20) Hi Adam Pastor,
I note your links are to a Oneness site. Is that your faith?
NO!
Just happened to find the links there!I copied this from a post on another Forum. I though it might be useful.
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed 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 exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition.”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 in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture.” “The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it 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. Eusebius,s 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:
In regards to 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.” 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
formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the evidence available 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.
It is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was 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 addition.”The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. 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 on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later 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.The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Histori
cal 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).”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 Caesarea. 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.See Daniel 8:9-12 and 2Tim 4:3.
Hi,
I see a tendency for some to immediately question the veracity of a scripture if it does not fit with a doctrinal belief. These deceptions are rare. I also see some accepting less simple and unlikely interpretations for the same reason.That is why when any such doubts are raised then this type of careful and thorough investigation must be done to come up with definite proof. Far more often we have not grasped a dimension that further study would reveal.
Pride and bias are very strong motivators. None of us really are Bereans -they were convinced by revelation about Jesus from their own honest study of the Old Testament. And they put faith in the Word to teach them rather than using the Word to prove their ideas right. And they listened to those sent to them to teach them by God, such as Paul.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 09 2004,22:37) Hi,
I see a tendency for some to immediately question the veracity of a scripture if it does not fit with a doctrinal belief. These deceptions are rare. I also see some accepting less simple and unlikely interpretations for the same reason.That is why when any such doubts are raised then this type of careful and thorough investigation must be done to come up with definite proof. Far more often we have not grasped a dimension that further study would reveal.
Pride and bias are very strong motivators. None of us really are Bereans -they were convinced by revelation about Jesus from their own honest study of the Old Testament. And they put faith in the Word to teach them rather than using the Word to prove their ideas right. And they listened to those sent to them to teach them by God, such as Paul.
Its a sin to make a false alegation. The Catholic Church admits that they changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. They also admit that they added the trinitarian formula. If nothing else their honest about it. Its not a secret, but a fact.Hi Michael,
I was not talking about the catholic church. Anyway just because in one of her publications a theologian admitted these changes were made does not mean that the church is repenting of these changes. She cannot repent as she has said she is infallible so all her falsehoods are locked in perpetuity. And she cannot be challenged by her bewitched followers-that is why you have to come out of her. She has set her path and locked the steering wheel on that path.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2004,21:15) Hi Michael,
I was not talking about the catholic church. Anyway just because in one of her publications a theologian admitted these changes were made does not mean that the church is repenting of these changes. She cannot repent as she has said she is infallible so all her falsehoods are locked in perpetuity. And she cannot be challenged by her bewitched followers-that is why you have to come out of her. She has set her path and locked the steering wheel on that path.
If I was in Babylon, I would indeed need to come out.t8 wrote.
Quote I copied this from a post on another Forum. I though it might be useful. My reply: I sometimes have christians ask to copy my work. If I write anything note worthy feel free to use it.
Michael, I am curious what you have meant by a few of your posts. I see you are on the right track in a lot of things. My email is [email protected]. Do me a favor and tell me the true Name of our Father in your email. It appears we are on similar paths in the Trinity doctrine and other areas.
Hi,
The word “GOD” appears about 3000 times just in the OT. There seems to little doubt that there is ONE such being there who is to be worshiped. No serious contenders are visible so there is no need to call this awesomely powerful being anything but GOD. Certainly other gods occasionally are mentioned, and idols arise at times but they are objects of mirth. Everyone reading the OT knows who is being talked about when GOD is mentioned.Jesus is sent and announces he is the SON of God. He dares to call God his Father. Jesus becomes filled with the Spirit of the Father, speaks the truth and does the Father's work on earth. Suddenly there is some confusion among locals and readers of the NT about this.
Like the natives of Malta, when Paul shook off the snake, they think there is a new God. A competitor with the God of the OT. Then they come to the conclusion that the Spirit of God is yet another God so they say there are three in one.They then review the OT in this new light and see that there are even three there in somewhat shadowy form.
This becomes official church doctrine, backed by the Roman Emperor and those who love the word and know GOD are killed and mistreated. God is not worshiped anymore but only their new combined deity. False religion continues without God's involvement or approval and wanders away on it's own path steadily distancing itself from the head of the true church.
Nothing has changed. God is One and his Son, Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday today and forever.
Hi,
The biggest problem with false teachings is that people think they are saved but they still are lost. False teachers induce a sense of false security that says that following them leads to safety. More often they lead others into a ditch. We are all on our own as far as salvation is concerned. Nicodemus asked the right question and was given the same answer all of us would be given.The Jews were given a certain security in following the Torah that they could be seen as righteous in the eyes of God when they come to the judgement. They have the Commandments and prescribed behaviors and deal with their known sin by regular sacrifices. Once a year they fast and the high Priest goes into the Holy of Holies on their behalf for their unknown sins. That is for the Jews only.
Outside of that covenant are all others. The tragedy is that those who are not Jews and have not been born into the Kingdom have no hope of salvation outside of the new covenant apart from God's mercy. The other exceptions are those who live according to a true conscience towards God and man or help God's brothers in some way or God saves them simply because they are poor and downtrodden.
Some look at the warnings to the churches in the front of Revelation as general advice about ways to improve our relationship with God. But these are only written to those already in God's church.They do not help anyone who has yet to establish that relationship. No amount of sincere religious activity can bridge the gap to God.
Jesus is the only way.
Hi liljon,
The verse in 1Jn 5.7 is the well known corrupted verse. It was inserted into the KJV from an interprative jotting in the verge of a manuscript and if you search this topic you will find no one arguing now that it should be there.
The other classic is the Matt 28 baptism formula of three and this is not found in any manuscript prior to 300ad according to the historian Bishop Eusebius.1 john 5:7
Cyprian (in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Treatise 1, paragraph 6)The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”
plus Mt 28:19-20 is in the DIDACHE
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.Hi liljon,
Yes you do need to choose.
The security of a denomination or the security of building on the foundation stone of Jesus himself and the rock that is his teachings.
Most prefer the denomination option but eventually they will face their maker and no denomination will be there to defend them-only Jesus and the Word.
The road is narrow and few will choose it.Then liljon we need to recognise that the words spoken of the true church are not spoken of the whore of Babylon. We all need to discern the difference as they go in opposite directions.
That is why we are told to “come out of her”
She persecuted and kills God's people who did not follow her away from Christ at the time of Constantine. She still is self satisfied and contemptuous of truth having set up her own teachings as greater than the Word.
Jesus said “Follow me”Hi liljon,
We are in a real battle. A battle for the defence and the restoration of truth for the church of God. That truth is in the Word of God. It has been assaulted and distorted. It has been shown no respect by those who claim church leadership but have no fear of God or awe of His Son.This is the right thing to do for those who zealously love God and share His hope that all be saved.
Many sincere searchers and devout people are unable to come to God because of these obstructions to knowledge of the truth that have been placed in their path. This is not a recent development. These errors were introduced within 300 years of the Christ's establishment of his church on the rock of his teachings.
2 cor 10.4″The weapons of our warfare are not merely human.They possess God's power for the destruction of strongholds.We demolish sophistries and every proud pretension that raises itself against the knowledge of God”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
