Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #2

[BreadOfLife]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't believe in Jehovah nor do they believe in Baptizing in the Name of Jesus Christ.

• “With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)

• Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

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.”

No - we don't refer to "Jehovah". That is a man-made, 13th century invention.

As for Baptism, "In the name of" means "By the Authority of". In Acts 2:38, Peter tells the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which simply means by His AUTHORITY. This is why, in the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), we see this explicitly spelled out:
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. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

I now give you scholarly linguistic evidence on the term, "In the name of" . . .

According to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange/:
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding: Old English nama, noma "name, REPUTATION," from Proto-Germanic *namon

(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

We've all experienced the power of namedropping in our lives. People respect us and our opinions if they believe we are connected to someone with GREATER REPUTATION AND AUTHORITY.

In all cultures, people of authority have always lent their REPUTATION and their AUTHORITY to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations. The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

English Reports Annotated - Pages 1505-2672, 1505, page 2048:
...an action on a board given to trustees of an industrial society before the act may, after registration under the act, be brought in the name of the newly -incorporated body.

“In the name of” meaning:
Macmillan Dictionary
1. representing someone or something
2. using the authority given by someone or something

Collins Dictionary
1. in appeal or reference to
2. by the authority of; as the representative of

Idioms.TheReferenceDictionary.com
1. Based on the authority of someone or something. We proclaim these things in the name of God. In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.

Thesaurus.com
- through - at the hand of
- supported by - through the agency of
- via - with
- through the medium of
- under the aegis of
- with the assistance of

 

[tigger 2]

21 Chapters later - Jesus calls Himself the very SAME thing:
Rev. 22:13
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.


THEN, I showed you where the Holy Spirit is ALSO called "God":

Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the HOLY SPIRIT and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

TRINITY.

Some attempt to prove their “Jehovah is Jesus” idea by pointing to Rev. 1:8 where God is clearly called “Alpha and Omega” and then saying that Jesus claims the same title at Rev. 22:13. They point to Rev. 22:16 as proof that it is Jesus who is claiming to be the Alpha and Omega of verse 13. Since Jehovah is clearly Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8), they say, and Jesus is Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13), then Jesus IS Jehovah.

However, it is most likely that this is simply an example of the “speaker confusion trick.
Usually the “speaker confusion trick” works best when a Bible which does not use quotation marks (such as the KJV) is examined.

As you probably know, the original Bible writers didn’t use any punctuation or initial capitalization and frequently ran the words of one speaker right into those of another speaker without any warning or indication. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, for example, warns Bible readers:

“The language of the MESSENGER frequently glides into that of the SENDER ...” and, “what a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the MASTER.” - “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation” - Preface.

Is Jesus ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 22?

Now look at Rev. 22:8-16. (The SC trick doesn’t work nearly as well here, but some trinitarians insist on using it anyway.) John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in v. 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in v. 10). The angel may be still speaking in v. 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB,1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in v. 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It’s entirely a matter of translator’s choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millenium Bible, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).

Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other respected trinitarian translations do not!

The RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV show (by quotation marks and indenting) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words.

(The Jerusalem Bible and the NJB show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.) Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

So, if you insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV, you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

And, just as the use of “I, John” indicated a new speaker earlier in Revelation, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - “I, Jesus” also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement (“I am the Alpha and Omega”) was made by someone else!

Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word “his” in verse 14 that they didn’t mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing “His Commandments” (not “My Commandments”)! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text, e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; MKJV; Young’s Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa’s translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses “him.“

So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.

In short, there is no reason, other than a desire to support the trinity tradition, to believe that Jesus is being called “Alpha and Omega” in Rev. 22. And there is good evidence to believe that it is his Father only who uses this title for himself.

 

[tigger 2]

21 Chapters later - Jesus calls Himself the very SAME thing:
Rev. 22:13
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.


THEN, I showed you where the Holy Spirit is ALSO called "God":

Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the HOLY SPIRIT and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

TRINITY.

Acts 5:3, 4. Here we find a baptized Christian, one who has, therefore, received holy spirit, selling his property and giving some of the money from that sale to the Apostles. Now this man was under no obligation to sell his land or give any of that money to the Apostles. That he did so would have been a fine thing. But this man, Ananias, wanted honor more than he wanted to give charity. So he gave only part of the money from his property to the Apostles. This, too, would have been a fine thing. but he lied to the Apostles, because he wanted even more recognition, and told them he had given them all the money from the sale of his property!

So Peter said,

“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to [or ‘cheat’ - Mo (or ‘to deceive’ or ‘to play false’ - Thayer, #5574; cf. #5574, Strong’s and Thayer, in Heb. 6:18 as rendered in RSV, NEB, CBW, and The Amplified Bible)] the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? .... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to [‘played false to’ (‘defrauded’ - Mo)] men but to God.” - RSV.

The “evidence” here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit “must” be God!

This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of “reasoning” applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this “evidence” we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says “you have not lied to men but to God”!

We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” - RSV.

So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, “must” be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!

I’m sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias’ heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence “reveals” another essential “mystery”: Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.

One of Christendom’s favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter’s statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:

“Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God.” - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.

Isn’t it obvious that, by willfully rebelling against the holy spirit (the motivating force sent by God) by lying to the Apostles, Ananias was also lying to God?

 

[BroRando]

As for Baptism, "In the name of" means "By the Authority of". In Acts 2:38, Peter tells the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which simply means by His AUTHORITY. This is why, in the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), we see this explicitly spelled out:
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. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

I now give you scholarly linguistic evidence on the term, "In the name of" . . .

According to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange/:
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding: Old English nama, noma "name, REPUTATION," from Proto-Germanic *namon

(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

We've all experienced the power of namedropping in our lives. People respect us and our opinions if they believe we are connected to someone with GREATER REPUTATION AND AUTHORITY.

In all cultures, people of authority have always lent their REPUTATION and their AUTHORITY to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations. The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

English Reports Annotated - Pages 1505-2672, 1505, page 2048:
...an action on a board given to trustees of an industrial society before the act may, after registration under the act, be brought in the name of the newly -incorporated body.

“In the name of” meaning:
Macmillan Dictionary
1. representing someone or something
2. using the authority given by someone or something

Collins Dictionary
1. in appeal or reference to
2. by the authority of; as the representative of

Idioms.TheReferenceDictionary.com
1. Based on the authority of someone or something. We proclaim these things in the name of God. In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.

Thesaurus.com
- through - at the hand of
- supported by - through the agency of
- via - with
- through the medium of
- under the aegis of
- with the assistance of

You don't Baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ because you don't believe in him. “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 Christ.

• “But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Some attempt to prove their “Jehovah is Jesus” idea by pointing to Rev. 1:8 where God is clearly called “Alpha and Omega” and then saying that Jesus claims the same title at Rev. 22:13. They point to Rev. 22:16 as proof that it is Jesus who is claiming to be the Alpha and Omega of verse 13. Since Jehovah is clearly Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8), they say, and Jesus is Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13), then Jesus IS Jehovah.

However, it is most likely that this is simply an example of the “speaker confusion trick.
Usually the “speaker confusion trick” works best when a Bible which does not use quotation marks (such as the KJV) is examined.

As you probably know, the original Bible writers didn’t use any punctuation or initial capitalization and frequently ran the words of one speaker right into those of another speaker without any warning or indication. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, for example, warns Bible readers:

“The language of the MESSENGER frequently glides into that of the SENDER ...” and, “what a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the MASTER.” - “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation” - Preface.

Is Jesus ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 22?

Now look at Rev. 22:8-16. (The SC trick doesn’t work nearly as well here, but some trinitarians insist on using it anyway.) John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in v. 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in v. 10). The angel may be still speaking in v. 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB,1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in v. 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It’s entirely a matter of translator’s choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millenium Bible, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).

Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other respected trinitarian translations do not!

The RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV show (by quotation marks and indenting) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words.

(The Jerusalem Bible and the NJB show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.) Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

So, if you insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV, you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

And, just as the use of “I, John” indicated a new speaker earlier in Revelation, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - “I, Jesus” also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement (“I am the Alpha and Omega”) was made by someone else!

Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word “his” in verse 14 that they didn’t mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing “His Commandments” (not “My Commandments”)! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text, e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; MKJV; Young’s Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa’s translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses “him.“

So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.

In short, there is no reason, other than a desire to support the trinity tradition, to believe that Jesus is being called “Alpha and Omega” in Rev. 22. And there is good evidence to believe that it is his Father only who uses this title for himself.

Thank you for that extremely VERBOSE, Scripturally acrobatic performance.
Funny, how complex your confused "explanations" need to be in order to arrive at your bizarre conclusions.

First of all - it is blindingly CLEAR that it is Jesus speaking from the preceding verse (v. 12), where He says:
“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done."

a. WHOSE coming is the world looking forward to that is foretold???
JESUS (1 Thess. 4:15-17).
b. WHAT is He coming to do??
To JUDGE the living and the dead (bringing His recompense with Him) - 2 Tim. 4:1.

So, you can keep your Scriptural acrobatics, your idiotic "speaker confusion trick", Vulcan mind-meld and any other nonsense you've invented . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You don't Baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ because you don't believe in him. “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 Christ.
“But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)

This is the most idiotic thing you've said so far - and that is saying a LOT.

Ummmmm, we Christians are the ones who believe Jesus to be GOD - unlike YOU.
We don't deny him, YOU do - and woe to ANYBODY who does:

Matt. 10:33
"But whoever denies me before men, I ALSO will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Good luck with that . . .

 

[BroRando]

This is the most idiotic thing you've said so far - and that is saying a LOT.

Ummmmm, we Christians are the ones who believe Jesus to be GOD - unlike YOU.
We don't deny him, YOU do - and woe to ANYBODY who does:

Matt. 10:33
"But whoever denies me before men, I ALSO will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Good luck with that . . .

Jesus said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15) ego'eimi

What was Pope Peter's Answer? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) Peter identifies Jesus as “the Christ” (Greek, ho Khri·stosʹ), a title equivalent to “the Messiah” (from Hebrew ma·shiʹach), both meaning “Anointed One.” Here “Christ” is preceded by the definite article in Greek, evidently as a way of emphasizing Jesus’ office as the Messiah.—See study notes on Mt 1:1; 2:4.

The Apostle Paul also gives witness about the ego'eimi . "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve," (Acts 27:23)

Matt. 10:33
"But whoever denies me before men, I ALSO will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

 

[ReChoired]

And a simple rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew tells us that this is a CROCK.
There are NO vowel points in the Hebrew language, so what you have is akin to "YHVH" and NOT "Jehovah".

YHVH was rendered as "Yaweh". It was the Spanish monk, Ramundus Martini who first fashioned the name as "Jehovah".
From your own JW online library:
"Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book, Pugeo Fidei, published in 1270 C.E.—over 700 years ago."

I am Seventh-day Adventist. Not WTS/JW. So whatever is in the WTS library is pretty much moot, as I demonstrated by the video and book material that "JEHOVAH" existed before the 13th century and Catholicism. The WTS/JW historical material is always to be taken with a large grain of salt, as it errs, misrepresents, misquotes, etc all the time. Demonstrations upon request.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15) ego'eimi

What was Pope Peter's Answer? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) Peter identifies Jesus as “the Christ” (Greek, ho Khri·stosʹ), a title equivalent to “the Messiah” (from Hebrew ma·shiʹach), both meaning “Anointed One.” Here “Christ” is preceded by the definite article in Greek, evidently as a way of emphasizing Jesus’ office as the Messiah.—See study notes on Mt 1:1; 2:4.

The Apostle Paul also gives witness about the ego'eimi . "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve," (Acts 27:23)

Matt. 10:33
"But whoever denies me before men, I ALSO will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Yup - Peter's answer was correct.

NOW - let's see HOW this "Messiah" was prophesied:
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

And when Satan tried to tempt Him - He Jesus quoted what the Scriptures said about HIMSELF:
Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Yup - what Peter said was right.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Acts 5:3, 4. Here we find a baptized Christian, one who has, therefore, received holy spirit, selling his property and giving some of the money from that sale to the Apostles. Now this man was under no obligation to sell his land or give any of that money to the Apostles. That he did so would have been a fine thing. But this man, Ananias, wanted honor more than he wanted to give charity. So he gave only part of the money from his property to the Apostles. This, too, would have been a fine thing. but he lied to the Apostles, because he wanted even more recognition, and told them he had given them all the money from the sale of his property!

So Peter said,

“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to [or ‘cheat’ - Mo (or ‘to deceive’ or ‘to play false’ - Thayer, #5574; cf. #5574, Strong’s and Thayer, in Heb. 6:18 as rendered in RSV, NEB, CBW, and The Amplified Bible)] the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? .... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to [‘played false to’ (‘defrauded’ - Mo)] men but to God.” - RSV.

The “evidence” here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit “must” be God!

This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of “reasoning” applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this “evidence” we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says “you have not lied to men but to God”!

We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” - RSV.

So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, “must” be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!

I’m sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias’ heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence “reveals” another essential “mystery”: Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.

One of Christendom’s favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter’s statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:

“Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God.” - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.

Isn’t it obvious that, by willfully rebelling against the holy spirit (the motivating force sent by God) by lying to the Apostles, Ananias was also lying to God?

Ananias's sin wasn't about lying to the Apostles.
It was about lying to GOD Himself, which is what Peter called the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

Yet another Scriptural proof of the Trinity.

 

[BroRando]

And when Satan tried to tempt Him - He Jesus quoted what the Scriptures said about HIMSELF:
Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the LORD, ( Jehovah Deu 6:16 ) thy God (Matthew 4:7)

Jesus said to him: “Again it is written: ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7) Jesus was quoting scripture with God's Name in it. “You must not put Jehovah your God to the test the way you put him to the test at Masʹsah. (Deuteronomy 6:16)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the LORD, ( Jehovah Deu 6:16 ) thy God (Matthew 4:7)

Jesus said to him: “Again it is written: ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7) Jesus was quoting scripture with God's Name in it. “You must not put Jehovah your God to the test the way you put him to the test at Masʹsah. (Deuteronomy 6:16)

Ummmmmm, WHO was Satan putting to the test?
Jesus.

Ergo, Jesus is GOD.
Checkmate . . .

 

[BroRando]

Ummmmmm, WHO was Satan putting to the test?
Jesus.

Wow! Correct!!! Even a broken clock is right two times a day. Satan knew better than to test God so he tested Jesus Christ the son of the living God.

When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. (James 1:13)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wow! Correct!!! Even a broken clock is right two times a day. Satan knew better than to test God so he tested Jesus Christ the son of the living God.
When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. (James 1:13)

Satan was trying to test God.
That's why Jesus reminded him that he could NOT.

Look - no matter HOW hard you try to manipulate the text or play your Scriptural acrobatics - there was only Jesus and Satan conversing in the desert. Jesus referred to Himself as "God" when He tells Satan:
Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

NOBODY else was there.

 

[BroRando]

Ummmmmm, WHO was Satan putting to the test?
Jesus.

 

[tigger 2]

Thank you for that extremely VERBOSE, Scripturally acrobatic performance of Scriptural acrobatics.
Funny, how complex your confused "explanations" need to be in order to arrive at your bizarre conclusions.

First of all - it is blindingly CLEAR that it is Jesus speaking from the preceding verse (v. 12), where He says:
“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done."

a. WHOSE coming is the world looking forward to that is foretold???
JESUS (1 Thess. 4:15-17).
b. WHAT is He coming to do??
To JUDGE the living and the dead (bringing His recompense with Him) - 2 Tim. 4:1.

So, you can keep your Scriptural acrobatics, your idiotic "speaker confusion trick", Vulcan mind-meld and any other nonsense you've invented . . .

...............................

If you do not understand the rules of quotation marks, there are places online which can help you.

Funny how you accuse me of what many trinitarian translators themselves have written. If you must reply with derogative invectives, it would be somewhat better if you targeted the actual source of your anger: trinitarian scholars themselves.

 

[BreadOfLife]

...............................

If you do not understand the rules of quotation marks, there are places online which can help you.

Funny how you accuse me of what many trinitarian translators themselves have written. If you must reply with derogative invectives, it would be somewhat better if you targeted the actual source of your anger: trinitarian scholars themselves.

I'm not "angry" with you for your Scriptural acrobatics - I am simply exposing you for it.
You can TRY to strip Rev. 22:13 out of its proper context to fit your needs - but CONTEXT is not your friend.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm not "angry" with you for your Scriptural acrobatics - I am simply exposing you for it.
You can TRY to strip Rev. 22:13 out of its proper context to fit your needs - but CONTEXT is not your friend.

Don't you think all the sentences in Scripture that portray God and Jesus as separate beings are informative? Like in Revelations 1:1, God, in his unitarian nature, gave Jesus a revelation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Don't you think all the sentences in Scripture that portray God and Jesus as separate beings are informative? Like in Revelations 1:1, God, in his unitarian nature, gave Jesus a revelation.

God the Father and Jesus are not "separate beings" - they are ONE Being.
They are 2 distinct Persons. The sentences you refer to describe their distinct ROLES in the Godhead - not that they have 2 natures.

This is a poor analogy - but think of it as if you were to incorporate yourself. You have a ROLE as the CEO of your corporation but you benefit from that corporation as an individual as well. Are you NOT the still Wrangler - or have you split into 2 separate beings?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am Seventh-day Adventist. Not WTS/JW. So whatever is in the WTS library is pretty much moot, as I demonstrated by the video and book material that "JEHOVAH" existed before the 13th century and Catholicism. The WTS/JW historical material is always to be taken with a large grain of salt, as it errs, misrepresents, misquotes, etc all the time. Demonstrations upon request.

Sorry - I got my cults mixed up.
As I stated before - the term, "Jehovah" was created from the pen of Spanish monk, Raymudus Martini in his work, Pugeo Fidei, in 1270.