• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

God declares Jesus God

Member
Is not Jesus the Head of the members of the Body Christ?

Show me the scripture
Jesus is the last Adam, a life giving Spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:45 For the scripture says, "The first man, Adam, was created a living being"; but the last Adam is the life-giving Spirit.
 
Loyal
, When Jesus said I and the Father are one he's only saying that I as a servant am doing only the will of my Father. That is to say we are in agreement that I shall do nothing I do not hear or see my Father doing. So if he was God at that time why did he need to hear or see what the Father was doing before he did it? He says in another place "Father I have given them the words that thou hast given me to give them." Clearly he identifies himself as not the Father but someone that can hear the Father. And therefore speaks for the Father.
Again: "This is my beloved (SON), in whom I am well pleased, HEAR ye him". Why? because God gave him the words to say and was opening up the NEW COVENANT with those words.

To the second point: That was a temptation of Satan who was asking Jesus to worship him, and his response was : "Thou shalt worship the Lord your God and him only" It was just the answering of Satans question will you worship me? And he says no. And keep in mind that he had to remain sinless to be a proper sacrifice unto his Father because he still lived under the Levitical law.
I doubt either of will change the mind of the other as its the Holly Spirits job to reveal it to us, so may I suggest that we both just pray for each other. here is a great article that may help or may not.

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That is the first verse I ever memorized in Greek (and about the only one I still remember.) What it’s saying in the Greek is what is self-evident in the English translation—that Jesus was with God the Father in the beginning, and that He himself was God. From before time, God the Father and God the Son co-existed along with God the Holy Spirit (not mentioned specifically here).

Some people say, “We could translate that verse as, ‘The Word was a God.’” There are other passages in which you could insert the word “a”, and it is sometimes done. But in this particular passage, it is very clear that it is saying, “In his essence, Jesus was God.”


We’re told in verse 14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, but He is not a created being. He was with the Father and the Spirit in the beginning. He is the infinite, eternal, never-brought-into-existence, ever-preexistent God.

Someone can say they disagree with John 1:1 or that interpretation, but they are disagreeing with what the Bible clearly says. We know this because Jesus’ deity is evident not only in this verse, but also repeatedly in the gospel of John. For instance, in John 8, Jesus is talking to a group of Jewish people that includes the teachers, scribes, and Pharisees. He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” It’s significant that He doesn’t just say, “I existed before Abraham,” but “before Abraham was I am”, because He is taking on the name of Yahweh—“I AM WHO I AM”—that God used when He revealed Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:14). Jesus was stating that as the Son of God, He was God—the eternal, pre-existent God of the Old Testament.

Some people say, “Well, that’s not how I interpret that passage”, or “He didn’t really mean that. He meant this…” Well, how did the crowd who heard Him interpret it? We’re told they picked up stones to stone Him. Why? Because it was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. Clearly even His enemies understood what He was claiming.

If you look in the Gospel of John, it is full of “I am” statements from Jesus: “I am the bread of life,” “I am the gate,” “I am the Good Shepherd,” and “I am the light of the world.” It’s not just these things He’s emphasizing; it’s the very words, “I am.” This repeated theme establishes Him as deity.

Titus 2:13 talks about “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” It’s not differentiating between our God the Father, and then our Savior Jesus Christ. No, the way the Greek is constructed, it’s talking about the same person. Jesus is our Savior and He is our God.

Another example is Jesus being called “God.” In John 20:28, He doesn’t rebuke Thomas when Thomas beholds Christ’s resurrection body and says, “My Lord and my God!” In contrast, whenever somebody falls on their knees to worship the angels in Scripture, the angels are terrified, saying, “Don’t you dare do that because I’m not God!” Likewise, when people fell down on their knees to worship Paul and Barnabas, they cried out, “No, no, no. I’m not God!” Why does Jesus not say, “I’m not God” to Thomas? Because He was God. Clearly He accepts worship as befitting to Him as Lord.

So how do you help people who don’t accept Jesus’ deity? I believe it is to sit down with them and say, “Please understand what this passage says. You can disagree if you want to as to whether Jesus is God, but just understand that Scripture is clearly stating that He is.”

The person who asked the question mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses, and it brings to mind a story that I haven’t told for many years. There was a woman named Diane who was not only a Jehovah’s Witness, but who also trained other Jehovah’s Witnesses on what to say and how to persuade people when they go door to door. I had a friend who said to me, “Randy, you’ve got to meet this woman. We’ve been talking, and she’s got all her Jehovah’s Witness ideas. Would you be willing to meet with her?”

I said, “I really don’t want to meet her and here’s why: I’ve met with numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses and numbers of Mormons, and nothing ever comes out of it. We sit down, and I open the Bible. I start talking to them, and they are always just all over the place, bringing their stuff in and not listening. I really don’t want to do it.” (In other words, I didn’t have a good attitude at all about meeting with this woman!)

Finally he said, “Come on. Please meet with her.”

So I begrudgingly agreed, “Okay.”

I went into this meeting with this lousy attitude. Maybe I prayed that God would speak through me to this person, but I certainly didn’t believe that He actually would.

I sat down with Diane and said, “Could we start by agreeing together that we’re going to trust whatever the Bible says? You can turn to any passage that you want; I will turn to any passage I want, and we’ll go from there. We’ll trust the Bible.”

She looked at me and said, “Okay, that’s fine, because I do believe the Bible.”

I thought, Yeah, yeah, yeah. You say that, but what’s going to happen as soon as I open it up?

I turned to John 1:1, thinking I know how she is going to respond, and said, “From years of studying Greek with the Greek teachers, and the Greek expositors I’ve read, here’s what they say about this passage.” Then I turned to John 8 (“Before Abraham was, I am”) and set up the whole context. I looked at the Titus 2 passage and dozens of other passages.

Then I said, “Diane, what does it seem to you like the Bible is saying about Christ?”

She said, slowly and deliberately, with a sort of stunned look on her face, “It sounds like it’s saying that He’s really God.”

I’m thinking, Okay, she’s just going with me for the moment. Then it’s going to collapse at the end when she comes back with all her Jehovah’s Witness stuff.

We went through Scripture for about half an hour, and then I looked at her and asked, “So, bottom line, what do you think based on this? Not what have you been taught as a Jehovah’s Witness, but what do you really think God is saying about Jesus in the Word?”

She responded, “Well, I think it’s saying that I’ve been wrong, and that Jesus is God.”

I shared the Gospel with her, and she prayed and gave her life to Christ. She was disowned by her Jehovah’s Witness family and was baptized in a Christian church, and last I knew she was walking with Jesus.

The moral of the story is don’t give up on people who are in cults. Yes, there is a time when you just realize, this isn’t productive to keep talking with a person who seems never to listen to Scripture. Maybe you think, I’ve tried and tried to witness to this Mormon friend or this Jehovah’s Witness friend. I’ll pray for them, but it’s going to take a miracle of grace to break through. But it is always a miracle for someone to come to faith in Christ. And God does those miracles, sometimes when we least expect him to.

God taught me a very valuable lesson that day. There is no question in my mind that it was not my wit, wisdom, or good attitude (which had started out bad) that won this woman to faith. It was the power of God’s Holy Spirit at work in her life.

photo credit
 
Member
The Holy Spirit is shown in Scriptures to be the Spirit of the Father and His Christ. There is no third person. Do your research on the origins of the trinity - you will find that it is a pagan teaching that was already taught among pagan religions long before Jesus came to earth. None of Jesus’ apostles taught the trinity concept. Even Moses, the first prophet of God never taught the trinity concept.
Why did the Risen Christ tell the disciples to pray to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Why pray to the Holy Spirit as a separate entity? Father God is an entity. The Word was an entity
 
Member
I doubt either of will change the mind of the other as its the Holly Spirits job to reveal it to us, so may I suggest that we both just pray for each other. here is a great article that may help or may not.

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That is the first verse I ever memorized in Greek (and about the only one I still remember.) What it’s saying in the Greek is what is self-evident in the English translation—that Jesus was with God the Father in the beginning, and that He himself was God. From before time, God the Father and God the Son co-existed along with God the Holy Spirit (not mentioned specifically here).

Some people say, “We could translate that verse as, ‘The Word was a God.’” There are other passages in which you could insert the word “a”, and it is sometimes done. But in this particular passage, it is very clear that it is saying, “In his essence, Jesus was God.”


We’re told in verse 14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, but He is not a created being. He was with the Father and the Spirit in the beginning. He is the infinite, eternal, never-brought-into-existence, ever-preexistent God.

Someone can say they disagree with John 1:1 or that interpretation, but they are disagreeing with what the Bible clearly says. We know this because Jesus’ deity is evident not only in this verse, but also repeatedly in the gospel of John. For instance, in John 8, Jesus is talking to a group of Jewish people that includes the teachers, scribes, and Pharisees. He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” It’s significant that He doesn’t just say, “I existed before Abraham,” but “before Abraham was I am”, because He is taking on the name of Yahweh—“I AM WHO I AM”—that God used when He revealed Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:14). Jesus was stating that as the Son of God, He was God—the eternal, pre-existent God of the Old Testament.

Some people say, “Well, that’s not how I interpret that passage”, or “He didn’t really mean that. He meant this…” Well, how did the crowd who heard Him interpret it? We’re told they picked up stones to stone Him. Why? Because it was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. Clearly even His enemies understood what He was claiming.

If you look in the Gospel of John, it is full of “I am” statements from Jesus: “I am the bread of life,” “I am the gate,” “I am the Good Shepherd,” and “I am the light of the world.” It’s not just these things He’s emphasizing; it’s the very words, “I am.” This repeated theme establishes Him as deity.

Titus 2:13 talks about “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” It’s not differentiating between our God the Father, and then our Savior Jesus Christ. No, the way the Greek is constructed, it’s talking about the same person. Jesus is our Savior and He is our God.

Another example is Jesus being called “God.” In John 20:28, He doesn’t rebuke Thomas when Thomas beholds Christ’s resurrection body and says, “My Lord and my God!” In contrast, whenever somebody falls on their knees to worship the angels in Scripture, the angels are terrified, saying, “Don’t you dare do that because I’m not God!” Likewise, when people fell down on their knees to worship Paul and Barnabas, they cried out, “No, no, no. I’m not God!” Why does Jesus not say, “I’m not God” to Thomas? Because He was God. Clearly He accepts worship as befitting to Him as Lord.

So how do you help people who don’t accept Jesus’ deity? I believe it is to sit down with them and say, “Please understand what this passage says. You can disagree if you want to as to whether Jesus is God, but just understand that Scripture is clearly stating that He is.”

The person who asked the question mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses, and it brings to mind a story that I haven’t told for many years. There was a woman named Diane who was not only a Jehovah’s Witness, but who also trained other Jehovah’s Witnesses on what to say and how to persuade people when they go door to door. I had a friend who said to me, “Randy, you’ve got to meet this woman. We’ve been talking, and she’s got all her Jehovah’s Witness ideas. Would you be willing to meet with her?”

I said, “I really don’t want to meet her and here’s why: I’ve met with numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses and numbers of Mormons, and nothing ever comes out of it. We sit down, and I open the Bible. I start talking to them, and they are always just all over the place, bringing their stuff in and not listening. I really don’t want to do it.” (In other words, I didn’t have a good attitude at all about meeting with this woman!)

Finally he said, “Come on. Please meet with her.”

So I begrudgingly agreed, “Okay.”

I went into this meeting with this lousy attitude. Maybe I prayed that God would speak through me to this person, but I certainly didn’t believe that He actually would.

I sat down with Diane and said, “Could we start by agreeing together that we’re going to trust whatever the Bible says? You can turn to any passage that you want; I will turn to any passage I want, and we’ll go from there. We’ll trust the Bible.”

She looked at me and said, “Okay, that’s fine, because I do believe the Bible.”

I thought, Yeah, yeah, yeah. You say that, but what’s going to happen as soon as I open it up?

I turned to John 1:1, thinking I know how she is going to respond, and said, “From years of studying Greek with the Greek teachers, and the Greek expositors I’ve read, here’s what they say about this passage.” Then I turned to John 8 (“Before Abraham was, I am”) and set up the whole context. I looked at the Titus 2 passage and dozens of other passages.

Then I said, “Diane, what does it seem to you like the Bible is saying about Christ?”

She said, slowly and deliberately, with a sort of stunned look on her face, “It sounds like it’s saying that He’s really God.”

I’m thinking, Okay, she’s just going with me for the moment. Then it’s going to collapse at the end when she comes back with all her Jehovah’s Witness stuff.

We went through Scripture for about half an hour, and then I looked at her and asked, “So, bottom line, what do you think based on this? Not what have you been taught as a Jehovah’s Witness, but what do you really think God is saying about Jesus in the Word?”

She responded, “Well, I think it’s saying that I’ve been wrong, and that Jesus is God.”

I shared the Gospel with her, and she prayed and gave her life to Christ. She was disowned by her Jehovah’s Witness family and was baptized in a Christian church, and last I knew she was walking with Jesus.

The moral of the story is don’t give up on people who are in cults. Yes, there is a time when you just realize, this isn’t productive to keep talking with a person who seems never to listen to Scripture. Maybe you think, I’ve tried and tried to witness to this Mormon friend or this Jehovah’s Witness friend. I’ll pray for them, but it’s going to take a miracle of grace to break through. But it is always a miracle for someone to come to faith in Christ. And God does those miracles, sometimes when we least expect him to.

God taught me a very valuable lesson that day. There is no question in my mind that it was not my wit, wisdom, or good attitude (which had started out bad) that won this woman to faith. It was the power of God’s Holy Spirit at work in her life.

photo credit
Dave, this is a wonderful lesson, I too pull away from having any discussions with cults. I need to allow the power of God to work through me.

thank you for sharing
 
Member
I doubt either of will change the mind of the other as its the Holly Spirits job to reveal it to us, so may I suggest that we both just pray for each other. here is a great article that may help or may not.



Some people say, “We could translate that verse as, ‘The Word was a God.’” There are other passages in which you could insert the word “a”, and it is sometimes done. But in this particular passage, it is very clear that it is saying, “In his essence, Jesus was God.”





We’re told in verse 14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, but He is not a created being. He was with the Father and the Spirit in the beginning. He is the infinite, eternal, never-brought-into-existence, ever-preexistent God.



Someone can say they disagree with John 1:1 or that interpretation, but they are disagreeing with what the Bible clearly says. We know this because Jesus’ deity is evident not only in this verse, but also repeatedly in the gospel of John. For instance, in John 8, Jesus is talking to a group of Jewish people that includes the teachers, scribes, and Pharisees. He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” It’s significant that He doesn’t just say, “I existed before Abraham,” but “before Abraham was I am”, because He is taking on the name of Yahweh—“I AM WHO I AM”—that God used when He revealed Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:14). Jesus was stating that as the Son of God, He was God—the eternal, pre-existent God of the Old Testament.



Some people say, “Well, that’s not how I interpret that passage”, or “He didn’t really mean that. He meant this…” Well, how did the crowd who heard Him interpret it? We’re told they picked up stones to stone Him. Why? Because it was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. Clearly even His enemies understood what He was claiming.



If you look in the Gospel of John, it is full of “I am” statements from Jesus: “I am the bread of life,” “I am the gate,” “I am the Good Shepherd,” and “I am the light of the world.” It’s not just these things He’s emphasizing; it’s the very words, “I am.” This repeated theme establishes Him as deity.



Titus 2:13 talks about “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” It’s not differentiating between our God the Father, and then our Savior Jesus Christ. No, the way the Greek is constructed, it’s talking about the same person. Jesus is our Savior and He is our God.



Another example is Jesus being called “God.” In John 20:28, He doesn’t rebuke Thomas when Thomas beholds Christ’s resurrection body and says, “My Lord and my God!” In contrast, whenever somebody falls on their knees to worship the angels in Scripture, the angels are terrified, saying, “Don’t you dare do that because I’m not God!” Likewise, when people fell down on their knees to worship Paul and Barnabas, they cried out, “No, no, no. I’m not God!” Why does Jesus not say, “I’m not God” to Thomas? Because He was God. Clearly He accepts worship as befitting to Him as Lord.



So how do you help people who don’t accept Jesus’ deity? I believe it is to sit down with them and say, “Please understand what this passage says. You can disagree if you want to as to whether Jesus is God, but just understand that Scripture is clearly stating that He is.”



The person who asked the question mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses, and it brings to mind a story that I haven’t told for many years. There was a woman named Diane who was not only a Jehovah’s Witness, but who also trained other Jehovah’s Witnesses on what to say and how to persuade people when they go door to door. I had a friend who said to me, “Randy, you’ve got to meet this woman. We’ve been talking, and she’s got all her Jehovah’s Witness ideas. Would you be willing to meet with her?”



I said, “I really don’t want to meet her and here’s why: I’ve met with numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses and numbers of Mormons, and nothing ever comes out of it. We sit down, and I open the Bible. I start talking to them, and they are always just all over the place, bringing their stuff in and not listening. I really don’t want to do it.” (In other words, I didn’t have a good attitude at all about meeting with this woman!)



Finally he said, “Come on. Please meet with her.”



So I begrudgingly agreed, “Okay.”



I went into this meeting with this lousy attitude. Maybe I prayed that God would speak through me to this person, but I certainly didn’t believe that He actually would.



I sat down with Diane and said, “Could we start by agreeing together that we’re going to trust whatever the Bible says? You can turn to any passage that you want; I will turn to any passage I want, and we’ll go from there. We’ll trust the Bible.”



She looked at me and said, “Okay, that’s fine, because I do believe the Bible.”



I thought, Yeah, yeah, yeah. You say that, but what’s going to happen as soon as I open it up?



I turned to John 1:1, thinking I know how she is going to respond, and said, “From years of studying Greek with the Greek teachers, and the Greek expositors I’ve read, here’s what they say about this passage.” Then I turned to John 8 (“Before Abraham was, I am”) and set up the whole context. I looked at the Titus 2 passage and dozens of other passages.



Then I said, “Diane, what does it seem to you like the Bible is saying about Christ?”



She said, slowly and deliberately, with a sort of stunned look on her face, “It sounds like it’s saying that He’s really God.”



I’m thinking, Okay, she’s just going with me for the moment. Then it’s going to collapse at the end when she comes back with all her Jehovah’s Witness stuff.



We went through Scripture for about half an hour, and then I looked at her and asked, “So, bottom line, what do you think based on this? Not what have you been taught as a Jehovah’s Witness, but what do you really think God is saying about Jesus in the Word?”



She responded, “Well, I think it’s saying that I’ve been wrong, and that Jesus is God.”



I shared the Gospel with her, and she prayed and gave her life to Christ. She was disowned by her Jehovah’s Witness family and was baptized in a Christian church, and last I knew she was walking with Jesus.



The moral of the story is don’t give up on people who are in cults. Yes, there is a time when you just realize, this isn’t productive to keep talking with a person who seems never to listen to Scripture. Maybe you think, I’ve tried and tried to witness to this Mormon friend or this Jehovah’s Witness friend. I’ll pray for them, but it’s going to take a miracle of grace to break through. But it is always a miracle for someone to come to faith in Christ. And God does those miracles, sometimes when we least expect him to.



God taught me a very valuable lesson that day. There is no question in my mind that it was not my wit, wisdom, or good attitude (which had started out bad) that won this woman to faith. It was the power of God’s Holy Spirit at work in her life.



photo credit
Same old arguments from the article which I’ve addressed countless times but I’ll do it just for the sake of those who read. For that matter just to be clear I’m no Mormon nor Jehovah’s Witness but I believe they have grave doctrinal errors just like every single denomination today in Christianity. The entire visible church is corrupted beyond recognition in terms of departure from the truth. No denomination is spared.

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That is the first verse I ever memorized in Greek (and about the only one I still remember.) What it’s saying in the Greek is what is self-evident in the English translation—that Jesus was with God the Father in the beginning, and that He himself was God. From before time, God the Father and God the Son co-existed along with God the Holy Spirit (not mentioned specifically here).
Jesus was God in the Old Testament is exactly what I believe too. But clearly the writer of this article don’t acknowledge what he read in an honest manner. The Word WAS God, what happened to the past tense WAS? If Jesus remained as God, the word “was” should never be in John 1. Then the writer goes on to add his own interpretation, even mentioning the Spirit of God and assigning his trinity concept without scriptural backing. I could give a whole host of Scriptures to debunk that the Spirit is an actual third person and prove the trinity concept as a lie but I’ll leave that to God because He alone is able to show the truth.

Someone can say they disagree with John 1:1 or that interpretation, but they are disagreeing with what the Bible clearly says. We know this because Jesus’ deity is evident not only in this verse, but also repeatedly in the gospel of John. For instance, in John 8, Jesus is talking to a group of Jewish people that includes the teachers, scribes, and Pharisees. He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” It’s significant that He doesn’t just say, “I existed before Abraham,” but “before Abraham was I am”, because He is taking on the name of Yahweh—“I AM WHO I AM”—that God used when He revealed Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:14). Jesus was stating that as the Son of God, He was God—the eternal, pre-existent God of the Old Testament.
Again, was Jesus divine in OT? Yes, a resounding yes. Was Jesus “I AM” of the OT? Definitely. Jesus continued to talk to people about who He was before becoming a man, that’s totally true everything He said. But by ignoring such an obvious past tense word “was” in the John chapter 1 verse “the Word WAS God”, it is apparent the writer is the one disagreeing with the Bible. Curiously, denying Jesus’ divinity was never an issue raised in the Gospel when combating heresies, but denying Jesus’ mortality is a grave issue. According to apostle John, that denial of Jesus’ flesh-hood originated from the spirit of antichrist. I can write until my hands hurt but people willingly deceived will still not admit that saying Jesus remained as God is a subtle way of denying Jesus’ flesh-hood. God is Spirit, how can Jesus be flesh if He remained Spirit (God)? They can’t answer this straight forward question and can’t reconcile their beliefs with Jesus’ flesh-hood yet they remain in it.

Some people say, “Well, that’s not how I interpret that passage”, or “He didn’t really mean that. He meant this…” Well, how did the crowd who heard Him interpret it? We’re told they picked up stones to stone Him. Why? Because it was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. Clearly even His enemies understood what He was claiming.
Why did the crowd even accuse Jesus of blasphemy? Because He was indeed a man and flesh. If He was still God, they would have seen clearly that He was not of flesh nature and would never even have laid such a serious accusation on Him. And why didn’t Jesus just tell them “I did not blaspheme” if He remained God? Because He Himself know He was flesh. This is so straightforward but deceived people can’t see things for what it is.
Titus 2:13 talks about “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” It’s not differentiating between our God the Father, and then our Savior Jesus Christ. No, the way the Greek is constructed, it’s talking about the same person. Jesus is our Savior and He is our God.
Titus 2:13 is but one verse, and even that verse in the KJV translation, there is a clear distinction between the great God and Jesus Christ:

Titus 2:13 KJV
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
In addition, the writer clearly ignores the vast amount of other verses that clearly distinguished God as the Father and Jesus as Lord and Messiah:

Titus 1:4
To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

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

Similar verses that distinguishes God (who is called Father) and Lord Jesus are Romans 1:7, 2 Corinthians 1:2, Galatians 1:1, Galatians 1:3, Ephesians 1:2, Philippians 1:2, Colossians 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, Philemon 1:3, James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:2, 2 John 1:3, Jude 1:1, Revelation 1:1

By asserting that God refers to Jesus in the epistles in blatant disregard of all the verses I’ve mentioned which stated God is in fact the Father of both Jesus and us believers, the writer isn’t even rightly dividing the Gospel to begin with.

Another example is Jesus being called “God.” In John 20:28, He doesn’t rebuke Thomas when Thomas beholds Christ’s resurrection body and says, “My Lord and my God!” In contrast, whenever somebody falls on their knees to worship the angels in Scripture, the angels are terrified, saying, “Don’t you dare do that because I’m not God!” Likewise, when people fell down on their knees to worship Paul and Barnabas, they cried out, “No, no, no. I’m not God!” Why does Jesus not say, “I’m not God” to Thomas? Because He was God. Clearly He accepts worship as befitting to Him as Lord.
John 2:28 is raised yet as another false argument, in plain contradiction as to who God is addressed to. Did Thomas say “You are my Lord and my God?” to Jesus? No. So why interpret it that way if it contradicts all the verses of epistles that call only the Father as God? Scriptures will never contradict Scriptures. Yet the writer doesn’t interpret it the right way.

Why is Jesus the Son worshipped? Because God the Father decreed it long ago:

Hebrews 1:6
And when he brought his supreme Son into the world, God said, “Let all of God's angels worship him.

If God’s angels are commanded to worship Jesus, it’s no surprise that men will worship Him too. Jesus Himself never asked for worship, His Father commanded it for His own unknown reasons. The writer ignores that God can command anything, including who is to be worshipped and instead chooses to impose his own interpretation of why Jesus is worshipped. Then he conveniently comes to a contradiction by addressing Jesus as God when ALL the epistles addressed the Father as God.

Who do the wise and discerning listen to, the writer of the article or the Gospel? Decide for yourselves.
 
Last edited:
Member
Why did the Risen Christ tell the disciples to pray to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Why pray to the Holy Spirit as a separate entity? Father God is an entity. The Word was an entity
I’ll address your question tomorrow. It’s past bedtime here.
 
Member
I’ll address your question tomorrow. It’s past bedtime here.
correction:
Why did the Risen Christ tell the disciples baptize in the name the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Why baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit as a separate entity? Father God is an entity. The Son (Word) is an entity
 
Member
Why did the Risen Christ tell the disciples to pray to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Why pray to the Holy Spirit as a separate entity? Father God is an entity. The Word was an entity
Jesus taught His disciples how to pray in the Gospel, and it was a prayer to the Father, God.

“Our Father, who is in heaven” this is the prayer Jesus mentioned specifically, there was no Holy Spirit mentioned throughout.

All the verses that talk about the trinity were hoaxes, a deliberate mistranslation in order to support the trinity false doctrine, under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) after the second century AD. The Roman Catholic Church even changed the water baptism formula from “in the name of Jesus Christ” to “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” by their own admission:

Original baptism formula in Acts:

Acts 2:38
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

Evidence that the RCC tampered and altered the baptism formula in support of their trinity false doctrine:

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.”

Britannica Encyclopedia 11th Edition,Vol 3 (Page 82, and Pages 365-366)
“Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”- “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

Canney Encylopedia of Religion (Page 53)
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.”

For nearly two centuries, there was no trinity doctrine of God among the church. It began when emperor Constantine took over and legalised Christianity. The sinister thing about the trinity water baptism is that it entirely removed the name of Jesus Christ and replaced it with an unknown name. The name of the Father was NEVER Jesus Christ, neither did the Spirit bear the name Jesus Christ, so what is the name of the trinity? Nobody knows.

I have a case with evidences from Scriptures, language translations and church history that will prove that the trinity is a pagan false doctrine that was Christianized by RCC just like RCC’s Christianization of Christmas (an originally pagan birthday celebration of a pagan god), worship of the Holy Mary etc. But I’ll leave it here for now.
 
Member
Looks like the trinity to me.

Matthew 28:19 (MEV) "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
 
Member
Looks like the trinity to me.

Matthew 28:19 (MEV) "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 28:19 is CORRUPTED by the Roman Catholic Church. A multitude of sources say so:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be 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.

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:...

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 +.

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...

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.

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 triune 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 triune formula was a later development.

“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 whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

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.

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.

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.

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 confessed 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.

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.

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).
 
Member
Matthew 28:19 is CORRUPTED by the Roman Catholic Church. A multitude of sources say so:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be 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.

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:...

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 +.

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...

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.

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 triune 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 triune formula was a later development.

“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 whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

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.

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.

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.

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 confessed 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.

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.

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).
This is eye opening simply because all authority was given to Jesus The Christ.

What is curious is Martin Luther, who printed the Bible in 1522, as thorough as he was should have seen the error. ????
 
Member
Lots of work on that one Exnu.
AD 325 The Emperor Constantine convenes the first ever ecumenical gathering of the Catholic church at the council of Nicaea. At this meeting of more than 300 Bishops, the concept of a Christian Trinity was officially adopted.
Reason: satisfy the other pagan religions being brought into the official religion of Rome.
Hindu trinity- Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu
Roman trinity- Jupiter, Juno, Minerva
Egyptian trinity- Osiris, Isis, and Horus

After the council of Nicaea, any Christian who continued to believe in the truth of Sonship was threatened with excommunication, banishment, or death. This sounds like a group of real Christian disciples huh????
Also Mary came into stardom due to the belief that if Jesus was God and Mary was the mother of Jesus then she was also the MOTHER OF GOD. If you've ever wondered why they have so many statues of Mary now you know.
At the Council of Ephesus AD 431, Mary was declared by the roman Catholic church to be the MOTHER OF GOD as well as the MOTHER of CHRIST. Therefore they pray to her as the mediator between them and God, instead of Jesus whom is the New High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.

We Baptize in the name of the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST simply because we know that all 3 exist and all 3 are doing the work of perfecting children of God. GOD is GOD the Father of Jesus(flesh) and Jesus Christ(spirit), and the Holy Ghost is the believers guide/comforter in this world as well as teacher. It was the spirit whom wrote the words of God so it should be the Spirit that dwells in us that opens up the scriptures to a new babe in Christ. And that is exactly what he does, EXPLAINS THE BIBLE. He does not speak of himself but what the Lord wants you to know that he speaks of.

Have you not heard his voice???????
 
Member
The water Baptism is symbolic and the only Baptism that matters to you, once its happened, is the Baptism in the Holy Ghost because now you have become a KNOWER not just a believer.

"If ye have not the spirit(HOLY GHOST), YE ARE NONE OF HIS."
 
Member
Matthew 28:19 is CORRUPTED by the Roman Catholic Church. A multitude of sources say so:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be 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.

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:...

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 +.

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...

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.

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 triune 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 triune formula was a later development.

“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 whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

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.

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.

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.

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 confessed 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.

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.

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).
This is eye opening simply because all authority was given to Jesus The Christ.

What is curious is Martin Luther, who printed the Bible in 1522, as thorough as he was should have seen the error. ????
 
Member
What does the Lord tell us concerning false religions of any form especially FALSE Christianity? "Come OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of HER SINS, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

Roman Catholicism is the Mother Of All Harlots and is receiving her plagues in the form of homosexuality, child molestation etc... within the priesthood especially. And Roman Catholicism is where the Trinity and the worship of Mary originated. Is it any wonder they have issues? The other denominational groups which have come and gone are having the same problems within their heirarchy today. Is it possible that DOCTRINAL ERROR is the issue?? Is it possible that denunciation of Jesus as the Son of God is one of the issues??

Be very careful in these end times what you hear as doctrinal error is everywhere. The only person that knows the TRUTH is Jesus as he is the TRUTH. Get your information from him and only him. Then when you are settled in sound doctrine can you carefully listen to others and identify the errors.

Think of Christianity as a train ride. You have a beginning and an ending destination. Satan has a job which is to derail your train from reaching its destination. If you know not what the destination is you'll never board the train to get to the destination. Look at the reward Jesus Christ received of his Father for laying down his life as this is the same reward for you. " Whosoever shall lose his life, for MY sake and the GOSPLE'S, the same shall save it." This is your destination. But if you allow false doctrine in this truth will never be understood simply because you can not see that it is possible for you to attain to the same reward. Does not the Bible tell us that we have become JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST, if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together? How can anyone be an Heir unless they are a relative of the one giving of their possessions. Heir defined- A person LEGALLY entitled to the property or RANK of another......
God was and is GOD, Jesus is now also a GOD in subjection to his Father, he therefore received of his Father the Rank of GOD at his glorification. This same Rank is reserved for you as a Son of God. This is the destination as a JOINT HEIR. What ever takes your eye from the prize stops you from running to the prize and the world is full of things that are designed to cause you to FAIL.
 
Member
This is eye opening simply because all authority was given to Jesus The Christ.

What is curious is Martin Luther, who printed the Bible in 1522, as thorough as he was should have seen the error. ????
I’m afraid even Martin Luther King is among those deceived and does not know the complete truth.
 
Member
This is eye opening simply because all authority was given to Jesus The Christ.

What is curious is Martin Luther, who printed the Bible in 1522, as thorough as he was should have seen the error. ????
The trinity falsehood is one of the most deceptive teachings to ever pervade Christianity. But its origin is entirely pagan and was taught in ancient pagan religions long before the New Testament was ever written. Do a good research on the pagan trinity doctrines and you will know what I’m talking about.

Moses, the first prophet of God, said clearly to the children of Israel:

The Lord your God, the Lord is ONE.

Moses never said “God is one in three persons”. So since even Moses never taught the trinity, how come God became a trinity in the NT?

Because in the book of revelations, the devil is going to deceive the entire world (including and primarily Christians) by his trinity: Dragon (Satan Himself), Beast and False Prophet.

Christians are already indoctrinated for 2000 years to believe that God is a trinity, they will thus readily accept Satan’s trinity. It is the great delusion that God will allow on all those who don’t seek and love the truth and rely on men’s doctrines as truth.
 
Member
LOL, ❤ I cannot help it today. So many people, with our finite minds, as we ascribe God’s attributes and how they function and what they cannot do. I know the Bible says: two things God Cannot do, is “Lie and Deny Himself”. And I know it also says: “with men things are impossible but WITH GOD ALL THINGS are possible. Now could He be 100% God and 100 % man in the form of “The Word made Flesh “ name “Jesus” and walk among us?

That was a question. Either: Ye or Nay.❤
 

Similar threads


Top