Exploring Trinitarian Logic

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hmmm. I was referring to inconsistency in the law and inconsistency of judicial interpretation. Assumed you’d know that.
Sorry, I missed your meaning. Yes, inconsistent judicial decisions occur, yet the judicial system manages quite well. In the U.S. federal courts, SCOTUS has the last word, and usually takes cases when the circuits are split on a legal interpretation -- so the inconsistency ends up being an issue only as between circuits (and every case arises in only one circuit). Each State likewise has a high court with the last word on issues of state law within its jurisdiction, so any inconsistency is only among lower courts. There is a tendency to follow the "majority rule" when a particular state fields a case of first impression in that state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrangler

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,598
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sorry, I missed your meaning. Yes, inconsistent judicial decisions occur, yet the judicial system manages quite well. In the U.S. federal courts, SCOTUS has the last word, and usually takes cases when the circuits are split on a legal interpretation -- so the inconsistency ends up being an issue only as between circuits (and every case arises in only one circuit). Each State likewise has a high court with the last word on issues of state law within its jurisdiction, so any inconsistency is only among lower courts. There is a tendency to follow the "majority rule" when a particular state fields a case of first impression in that state.
I think @marks was suggesting some kind of similar reconciliation process is needed for Scripture focus individually.

Most of us recognize apparent contradictions in Scripture. Normally, these are mostly resolved by context and translation choices. It takes deep dives into the culture of the text to resolve the rest.

I suppose this brings up a philosophical question. What are the implications of unresolved contradictions of text inspired by a supposedly all-knowing God? (I suspect you and I are more comfortable with ambiguity than most.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan

Magdala

Active Member
Dec 25, 2024
611
113
43
Pacific Northwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What do you think it means for them to be one with each other?

My question wasn't intended to prompt a question, but rather an answer. You said that Jesus instructed His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for Him, by baptizing them in His name, and so you would think that Jesus would've told them to do that only in the name of the Son, but He didn't, rather said, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." So, what's your explanation for why Jesus included the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit if it's about baptizing in the Son's name for the Son?
 
Last edited:

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My question wasn't intended to prompt a question, but rather an answer. You said that Jesus commissioned His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for Him, by baptizing them in His name, and so you would think that Jesus would've told them to do that only in the name of the Son, but He didn't, rather said, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." So, what's your explanation for why Jesus included the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit if it's about baptizing in the Son's name?
Stop trying to fix a burned-down cabin with the same old foundation. Matt 28:19 in most translations is a forgery...

...

Lacking the spiritual understanding and guidance of the Spirit of God, concerning the spirit of Christ, Trinitarian translators modified verse 19b to mean all believers are baptized in their triune god – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their own created version is not in any original pre-300 AD manuscript including any Hebrew translation (New Revised Standard Version 1989). Scripture tells us that we are saved by being baptized in the spirit of Christ only, which is a part of the Holy Spirit, given by the Father, who is one, the only one God, the Almighty. Not of a triune god!

Additionally, scripture only supports the baptism in Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus, his spirit only, in his name. It is cited in Luke 24:46-47; John 20:31; Romans 1:4-5; Acts 2:21, 2:38; 3:6, 4:10, 8:12, 8:16, 9:27, 9:29, 10:48, 16:31, 19:5, 19:17, 22:14-16. The disciples followed Yahshua’s instruction to baptize in his name not in a forged instruction of the Trinitarians who added it into scripture.

There are dozens of sources pointing to the same conclusion, that Matthew 28:19b is not in the original language text and inserted into scripture later, deliberately to somehow support the Trinity.

Here are some few examples:

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, ‘...and the triune formula is a later addition.’

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, Page 295 states, “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.”

Theophilus of Antioch first used the term Trias about 180 AD, according to the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015.

The New Revised Standard Version Bible says that ‘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..”

The Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says “the basic form of our profession of faith took shape while the second and third centuries in the connection with the ceremony of baptism. As far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matt 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” (XVI 2004)


Consequence of this fabrication: One must be repentant and baptized, bathed or immersed into Christ only, not into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The former baptismal requirement receives the spirit of God, along with the spirit of Christ. The latter does not and is not converted. One is repentant and believes they have also been crucified in their sins as Christ (who was sinless), not by a crucified Father, and his own Holy Spirit.

As Galatians 3:27 states, “...who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” We are never spiritually clothed or immersed into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! That would be nonsense!

More sources that says Matt 28:19 is a forgery.

The Roman Catholics say, "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."[1]

The Evidence of Eusebius:

Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D.

Eusebius was an eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that was likely an early copy near to the original Matthew.

Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. 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.


[1] (The Catholic Encyclopedia, II 1907-1913)
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stop trying to fix a burned-down cabin with the same old foundation. Matt 28:19 in most translations is a forgery...

...

Lacking the spiritual understanding and guidance of the Spirit of God, concerning the spirit of Christ, Trinitarian translators modified verse 19b to mean all believers are baptized in their triune god – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their own created version is not in any original pre-300 AD manuscript including any Hebrew translation (New Revised Standard Version 1989). Scripture tells us that we are saved by being baptized in the spirit of Christ only, which is a part of the Holy Spirit, given by the Father, who is one, the only one God, the Almighty. Not of a triune god!

Additionally, scripture only supports the baptism in Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus, his spirit only, in his name. It is cited in Luke 24:46-47; John 20:31; Romans 1:4-5; Acts 2:21, 2:38; 3:6, 4:10, 8:12, 8:16, 9:27, 9:29, 10:48, 16:31, 19:5, 19:17, 22:14-16. The disciples followed Yahshua’s instruction to baptize in his name not in a forged instruction of the Trinitarians who added it into scripture.

There are dozens of sources pointing to the same conclusion, that Matthew 28:19b is not in the original language text and inserted into scripture later, deliberately to somehow support the Trinity.

Here are some few examples:

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, ‘...and the triune formula is a later addition.’

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, Page 295 states, “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.”

Theophilus of Antioch first used the term Trias about 180 AD, according to the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015.

The New Revised Standard Version Bible says that ‘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..”

The Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says “the basic form of our profession of faith took shape while the second and third centuries in the connection with the ceremony of baptism. As far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matt 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” (XVI 2004)


Consequence of this fabrication: One must be repentant and baptized, bathed or immersed into Christ only, not into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The former baptismal requirement receives the spirit of God, along with the spirit of Christ. The latter does not and is not converted. One is repentant and believes they have also been crucified in their sins as Christ (who was sinless), not by a crucified Father, and his own Holy Spirit.

As Galatians 3:27 states, “...who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” We are never spiritually clothed or immersed into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! That would be nonsense!

More sources that says Matt 28:19 is a forgery.

The Roman Catholics say, "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."[1]

The Evidence of Eusebius:

Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D.

Eusebius was an eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that was likely an early copy near to the original Matthew.

Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. 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.


[1] (The Catholic Encyclopedia, II 1907-1913)

Let me push back a bit, by quoting the contrary arguments put forward by a Unitarian: Is Matthew 28:19 A Forgery? - BiblicalUnitarian.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: ProDeo and Magdala

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let me push back a bit, by quoting the contrary arguments put forward by a Unitarian: Is Matthew 28:19 A Forgery? - BiblicalUnitarian.com
Well it's not a push at all, as your source is not credible just based on his support. There are many things in his article that are very sketchy.

It takes a bit of time to rebut all of his article.

Let me just supply a few areas that make big holes in it...

As one individual stated that I prefer over my words..
1.
“Virtually all of Eusebius’ quotes of Matt. 28:19 using the short form “in My name” are from his works prior to the Council of Nicaea. Those with the longer (Trinitarian) statement are from his works after Nicaea, after he was reluctantly “persuaded” by Constantine (under false pretenses) to sign the Nicene Creed.”

This speaks volumes....

and 2..To suggest the reason why all the cited text of how to be baptized in Acts is in the abbreviated version, because t it was only meant to convey what the baptism accomplished is a pitiful and dangerous reason. Sounds good although dead wrong....no evidence here only speculation.

3a.Here's another quoted citation that makes the awkward extra words in verse 19 very suspect, and they do indeed make it awkward in the gait or rhythm of the verse as one would actually baptize with these words...

3b.The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity by Van de Sandt & van de Sandt, pp 287-89:
“…vestiges of the shorter version of Matt 28.19 are still to be found in various documents, including a Jewish-Christian source [see Pines, ‘The Jewish Christians’, 261], a Coptic text [‘The Discourse on Mary Theotokos by Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, describing her human origin and death’], and an ancient [Tiburtine] Sibylline prophecy [see Sibyllinische Weissaugungen, 316]. These independent witnesses to the ‘Eusebian’ conclusion of Matthew are substantial enough to at least suggest that this form enjoyed some popularity.”

.....Let's see what else I can quickly gleam from this article...

4. Look at the 6 folks he has who wrote in the trinity style, in the expanded version for the early 1st century on in this article. These are their words and not necessarily from scripture text at all, and certainly not around after 300 AD. Each one most prbably just copied this idea of how to baptize, or were familiar with this talk of it, say in this case copied first from Didache, the earliest writer.

This is not proof, it's another potential strong basis for another false strawman. This is not evidence at all.

So his section called: Early Quotes by Christian Authors can be completely ignored, and deleted as suspect
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well it's not a push at all, as your source is not credible just based on his support. There are many things in his article that are very sketchy.

It takes a bit of time to rebut all of his article.

Let me just supply a few areas that make big holes in it...

As one individual stated that I prefer over my words..
1.
“Virtually all of Eusebius’ quotes of Matt. 28:19 using the short form “in My name” are from his works prior to the Council of Nicaea. Those with the longer (Trinitarian) statement are from his works after Nicaea, after he was reluctantly “persuaded” by Constantine (under false pretenses) to sign the Nicene Creed.”

This speaks volumes....

and 2..To suggest the reason why all the cited text of how to be baptized in Acts is in the abbreviated version, because t it was only meant to convey what the baptism accomplished is a pitiful and dangerous reason. Sounds good although dead wrong....no evidence here only speculation.

3a.Here's another quoted citation that makes the awkward extra words in verse 19 very suspect, and they do indeed make it awkward in the gait or rhythm of the verse as one would actually baptize with these words...

3b.The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity by Van de Sandt & van de Sandt, pp 287-89:
“…vestiges of the shorter version of Matt 28.19 are still to be found in various documents, including a Jewish-Christian source [see Pines, ‘The Jewish Christians’, 261], a Coptic text [‘The Discourse on Mary Theotokos by Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, describing her human origin and death’], and an ancient [Tiburtine] Sibylline prophecy [see Sibyllinische Weissaugungen, 316]. These independent witnesses to the ‘Eusebian’ conclusion of Matthew are substantial enough to at least suggest that this form enjoyed some popularity.”

.....Let's see what else I can quickly gleam from this article...

4. Look at the 6 folks he has who wrote in the trinity style, in the expanded version for the early 1st century on in this article. These are their words and not necessarily from scripture text at all, and certainly not around after 300 AD. Each one most prbably just copied this idea of how to baptize, or were familiar with this talk of it, say in this case copied first from Didache, the earliest writer.

This is not proof, it's another potential strong basis for another false strawman. This is not evidence at all.

So his section called: Early Quotes by Christian Authors can be completely ignored, and deleted as suspect

“I suppose you are right about that,” Arius sighed. “Yet I have seen
alternative versions of Scripture before, and hesitate to explain them all
as the innocent errors of overworked scribes who mistook someone else’s
marginal note as a part of the original. I have learned not to underestimate
these trinitarians. There are zealots among them who would have no
qualms about passing off their doctrine as scriptural. In Caesarea not very
long ago, I was shown by Eusebius Pamphilus an ancient version of
Matthew’s gospel which ended with the words ‘Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name,’ and someone had
stricken out ‘my name’ and inserted ‘in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit’ in the margin. Pamphilus himself took the
shorter version to be the authentic one, and quoted it in several of his
writings. I have ever since shared his suspicion that Matthew indeed
wrote ‘my name’ originally, and some enterprising scribe changed it to
express the trinitarian formulation and then managed to give his new
copy wide circulation.”

“Come now, Arius! Unless this supposed scheme was hatched quite
early, before many copies of the gospel existed, the success of such a
venture would require a conspiracy of major proportions; all of the
manuscripts with the shorter ending would need to be rounded up and
suppressed as well. And if your Caesarean manuscript were that old,
surely it predated any theological push to clarify the nature of the Son’s
relationship to the Father. Let’s not forget that Father, Son and Holy
Spirit have been invoked and confessed together since the beginnings of
the church, not only in baptisms but in catechetical instruction, in
exorcisms, in preaching, in hymns and prayers, even in the blessing at the
end of Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians that has long been used in
our Eucharistic services—well before any theological debates broke out
over what these three are in relationship to each other. Isn’t it far more
likely that what you saw in Caesarea was simply someone’s correction of
a spurious shortened version back to Matthew’s original wording?”

“Is it? No similar expression incorporating this triplet in connection
with baptism is found anywhere else in our gospels and epistles. Without
exception, all of the other baptismal formulas found in these holy texts
are in tension with Matthew’s triune commission—prime among them
being the passage in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
where Peter admonishes the first converts to ‘Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be
forgiven.’ No trinitarian formulation there! And then there are the
references in Paul’s letters to the Romans, to the Corinthians and to the
Galatians suggesting that it is solely in the name of Christ that we are to
be baptized. These passages show us how the early church conducted its
baptisms—in one name, not three! Is it reasonable to assume that Christ
added two additional names in his baptismal commission to his apostles,
when these other passages unanimously tell us that those apostles then
followed a very different tradition? Is it reasonable to think that on that
first Pentecost, at his very first public proclamation, Peter would ignore
Christ’s final instructions and disobey him again?”

Eusebius remained skeptical. “What of the baptismal instruction
found in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles? ‘Concerning baptism, you
should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing
water.’”

“Few scholars consider the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
authoritative, Eusebius, and none suggest that the original apostles held to
all of its tenets, despite its title. Perhaps the Teaching simply followed a
local tradition based on the altered Matthew, and ignored the other
Scriptural evidence. This kind of alteration can happen, my friend. It can
be made to happen, by one as powerful as Constantine.”

“I think you are being somewhat paranoid here, Arius. Even an
emperor cannot add to the word of God!”

“Ah, but isn’t that exactly what he has just done in Nicaea?”

The two men stared at each other in silence.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Wrangler

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
“I suppose you are right about that,” Arius sighed. “Yet I have seen
alternative versions of Scripture before, and hesitate to explain them all
as the innocent errors of overworked scribes who mistook someone else’s
marginal note as a part of the original. I have learned not to underestimate
these trinitarians. There are zealots among them who would have no
qualms about passing off their doctrine as scriptural. In Caesarea not very
long ago, I was shown by Eusebius Pamphilus an ancient version of
Matthew’s gospel which ended with the words ‘Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name,’ and someone had
stricken out ‘my name’ and inserted ‘in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit’ in the margin. Pamphilus himself took the
shorter version to be the authentic one, and quoted it in several of his
writings. I have ever since shared his suspicion that Matthew indeed
wrote ‘my name’ originally, and some enterprising scribe changed it to
express the trinitarian formulation and then managed to give his new
copy wide circulation.”

“Come now, Arius! Unless this supposed scheme was hatched quite
early, before many copies of the gospel existed, the success of such a
venture would require a conspiracy of major proportions; all of the
manuscripts with the shorter ending would need to be rounded up and
suppressed as well. And if your Caesarean manuscript were that old,
surely it predated any theological push to clarify the nature of the Son’s
relationship to the Father. Let’s not forget that Father, Son and Holy
Spirit have been invoked and confessed together since the beginnings of
the church, not only in baptisms but in catechetical instruction, in
exorcisms, in preaching, in hymns and prayers, even in the blessing at the
end of Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians that has long been used in
our Eucharistic services—well before any theological debates broke out
over what these three are in relationship to each other. Isn’t it far more
likely that what you saw in Caesarea was simply someone’s correction of
a spurious shortened version back to Matthew’s original wording?”

“Is it? No similar expression incorporating this triplet in connection
with baptism is found anywhere else in our gospels and epistles. Without
exception, all of the other baptismal formulas found in these holy texts
are in tension with Matthew’s triune commission—prime among them
being the passage in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
where Peter admonishes the first converts to ‘Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be
forgiven.’ No trinitarian formulation there! And then there are the
references in Paul’s letters to the Romans, to the Corinthians and to the
Galatians suggesting that it is solely in the name of Christ that we are to
be baptized. These passages show us how the early church conducted its
baptisms—in one name, not three! Is it reasonable to assume that Christ
added two additional names in his baptismal commission to his apostles,
when these other passages unanimously tell us that those apostles then
followed a very different tradition? Is it reasonable to think that on that
first Pentecost, at his very first public proclamation, Peter would ignore
Christ’s final instructions and disobey him again?”

Eusebius remained skeptical. “What of the baptismal instruction
found in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles? ‘Concerning baptism, you
should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing
water.’”

“Few scholars consider the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
authoritative, Eusebius, and none suggest that the original apostles held to
all of its tenets, despite its title. Perhaps the Teaching simply followed a
local tradition based on the altered Matthew, and ignored the other
Scriptural evidence. This kind of alteration can happen, my friend. It can
be made to happen, by one as powerful as Constantine.”

“I think you are being somewhat paranoid here, Arius. Even an
emperor cannot add to the word of God!”

“Ah, but isn’t that exactly what he has just done in Nicaea?”

The two men stared at each other in silence.
The thing is and I said before, the earliest text of Matthew did not have the expanded version. And then when the expanded version was introduced after 300 AD, than I can see a mixture of later versions appear with either the shortened version or the expanded version.


There was no conspiracy in the original text, it was though a deliberate alteration later, and a monumental conspiracy.
The earliest text version has got to trump what anyone else said....later!!
 

Magdala

Active Member
Dec 25, 2024
611
113
43
Pacific Northwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matt 28:19 in most translations is a forgery...

How convenient for you.

Lacking the spiritual understanding and guidance of the Spirit of God, concerning the spirit of Christ, Trinitarian translators modified verse 19b to mean all believers are baptized in their triune god – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their own created version is not in any original pre-300 AD manuscript including any Hebrew translation (New Revised Standard Version 1989). Scripture tells us that we are saved by being baptized in the spirit of Christ only, which is a part of the Holy Spirit, given by the Father, who is one, the only one God, the Almighty. Not of a triune god!

Additionally, scripture only supports the baptism in Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus, his spirit only, in his name. It is cited in Luke 24:46-47; John 20:31; Romans 1:4-5; Acts 2:21, 2:38; 3:6, 4:10, 8:12, 8:16, 9:27, 9:29, 10:48, 16:31, 19:5, 19:17, 22:14-16. The disciples followed Yahshua’s instruction to baptize in his name not in a forged instruction of the Trinitarians who added it into scripture.

There are dozens of sources pointing to the same conclusion, that Matthew 28:19b is not in the original language text and inserted into scripture later, deliberately to somehow support the Trinity.

Here are some few examples:

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, ‘...and the triune formula is a later addition.’

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, Page 295 states, “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.”

Theophilus of Antioch first used the term Trias about 180 AD, according to the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015.

The New Revised Standard Version Bible says that ‘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..”

The Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says “the basic form of our profession of faith took shape while the second and third centuries in the connection with the ceremony of baptism. As far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matt 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” (XVI 2004)


Consequence of this fabrication: One must be repentant and baptized, bathed or immersed into Christ only, not into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The former baptismal requirement receives the spirit of God, along with the spirit of Christ. The latter does not and is not converted. One is repentant and believes they have also been crucified in their sins as Christ (who was sinless), not by a crucified Father, and his own Holy Spirit.

As Galatians 3:27 states, “...who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” We are never spiritually clothed or immersed into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! That would be nonsense!

More sources that says Matt 28:19 is a forgery.

The Roman Catholics say, "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."[1]

The Evidence of Eusebius:

Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D.

Eusebius was an eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that was likely an early copy near to the original Matthew.

Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. 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.


[1] (The Catholic Encyclopedia, II 1907-1913)

In Scripture as we have it, you won't find a description of how an actual Baptism is done. We learn about the details of Baptism from the Apostolic Tradition. In the first century document The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), written between 50 and 70 AD while most of the apostles were still alive, explicit instruction for Baptism is given:

"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 (cf. Matt. 28:19) in living water. But if you have no living water (river, stream or lake), baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

As shown, there were and are several ways to Baptize a new Christian, and this was and is always accompanied by the invoking of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How convenient for you.



In Scripture as we have it, you won't find a description of how an actual Baptism is done. We learn about the details of Baptism from the Apostolic Tradition. In the first century document The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), written between 50 and 70 AD while most of the apostles were still alive, explicit instruction for Baptism is given:

"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 (cf. Matt. 28:19) in living water. But if you have no living water (river, stream or lake), baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

As shown, there were and are several ways to Baptize a new Christian, and this was and is always accompanied by the invoking of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Your Didache so-called Apostolic Teachings is not worth a few written sheets of toilet paper. And your dates of compilation are found wanting; well exaggerated!

The credibility of the Didache is a subject of debate among many scholars. It is considered part of the group of second-generation Christian writings known as the Apostolic Fathers, and it is believed to have been written between the first and second centuries AD. However, some scholars argue that it was written as late as the 11th century AD, based on the date of the manuscript discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in 1873.

So now is scripture of the words of God authentic to you or your whimsical writings you cherish here? It make me wonder if the traditions of your men, you honor more.

Look I'm not interested in holding in anything in esteem of the words of men who are most probably not Christians anyway, over God's word!
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Brakelite

Magdala

Active Member
Dec 25, 2024
611
113
43
Pacific Northwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your Didache so-called Apostolic Teachings is not worth a few written sheets of toilet paper. And your dates of compilation are found wanting; well exaggerated!

The credibility of the Didache is a subject of debate among many scholars. It is considered part of the group of second-generation Christian writings known as the Apostolic Fathers, and it is believed to have been written between the first and second centuries AD. However, some scholars argue that it was written as late as the 11th century AD, based on the date of the manuscript discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in 1873.

So now is scripture of the words of God authentic to you or your whimsical writings you cherish here? It make me wonder if the traditions of your men, you honor more.

Look I'm not interested in holding in anything in esteem of the words of men that are most probably not Christians anyway, over God's word!

I've heard it said that according to most scholars, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) was written in the late first century or possibly early second century, and that the consensus on the range is 70–110 AD. If that's true, there still would've been members of the Twelve that were alive. Can you show me a contemporary writing from that period that either contradicts or condemns The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
9,899
7,170
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
A touch of desperation there Brakelite.

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalm 82:6)

They missed the mark and their calling, ultimately becoming hardened in unbelief.

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Brakelite, if gods is used of God’s representatives Psa 82:1-4 which is also rendered “Judges” in Ex 21:6; 22:8-9 22:28, 2 Chron 19:5-6. do you have a problem with it being applied to the Messiah (as per Psa 45:6-7, Heb 1:8-9)

Maybe you can take that up with him when he comes?

F2F
My issue isn't with what God calls His children. My issue is how the Jews reacted to Jesus claim of Sonship, calling it blasphemy. Why would they do that if they didn't recognise that Jesus was claiming His Father as father in the highest sense of the word? Not adopted as we are... not blasphemy... not created as we are... not blasphemy... but a true literal Son unlike them. Unlike us. That's what offended the Jews, claiming Jesus was making Himself equal to God. And they were right. But it wasn't blasphemy because it was true.
As I pointed out, John 1:12 says that we too are sons and daughters of God. Are you refuting this?
Not at all. But we are adopted.
So do not get confused and think that Jesus had the power to raise himself from the dead
I don't believe that. No confusion. I'm not of the Trinitarian mode that believes there was a part of Jesus still in heaven connected to the "trinity" and able to act independently and raise His own body from the tomb. Jesus was every bit as dead as we would be if we refused God's redemption. The second death. A death without hope, without a resurrection, and eventual destruction. That was the death Christ experienced. Only because He was without sin, God was legally allowed within the law to raise Him from that death. And while I'm there, there was no part of Jesus, soul or spirit, that turned into an independent being and wandered off somewhere else while His body lay in the tomb. That's not how the first death... the death of sleep works, from which all are awakened to either condemnation or life.
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
9,899
7,170
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I've heard it said
If the above statement was the basis for the development of doctrine in your church, it is not surprising that we are in such a mess with a Roman church that over several centuries dived into deep apostasy and having to use force in order to establish itself. Tradition, rumour, and innovative ideas of men (such as the didache...the decretals...or the donation of Constantine as examples) do not constitute truth.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. ”
Isaiah 8:20 KJV
 

Magdala

Active Member
Dec 25, 2024
611
113
43
Pacific Northwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If the above statement was the basis for the development of doctrine in your church, it is not surprising that we are in such a mess with a Roman church that over several centuries dived into deep apostasy and having to use force in order to establish itself. Tradition, rumour, and innovative ideas of men (such as the didache...the decretals...or the donation of Constantine as examples) do not constitute truth.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. ”
Isaiah 8:20 KJV

You should probably finish reading what I wrote.
 

face2face

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2015
8,243
1,202
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
My issue isn't with what God calls His children. My issue is how the Jews reacted to Jesus claim of Sonship, calling it blasphemy. Why would they do that if they didn't recognise that Jesus was claiming His Father as father in the highest sense of the word?
It's a great question, the answer to which the Jews overlooked from the very beginning!

The Problem - God’s Holiness and Separation from Sin:
  • Isaiah 59:2 states: "But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear."
  • James 1:13 says: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."
The Jews belief of God through the Shema
  • Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema declares: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
Traditional Jewish thought maintains a clear distinction between the Divine and the fallen human condition, which makes the concept of God having a child with fallen man incompatible with their beliefs about God's nature and holiness.

But, what did God show them in the Beginning?

F2F
 

face2face

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2015
8,243
1,202
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
@Brakelite

And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel. Ge 3:15.

Can you see how they missed it?

F2F
 

face2face

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2015
8,243
1,202
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
No button for 10 likes.

The Didache (a.d. 60-150) is convincing enough.
@RedFan If you read The Book of Acts or The Didache without any preconceived notions of the Trinity, I believe you'll see exactly that—Jesus is proclaimed as the Christ, but there is no explicit identification of him as a second member or Person of a "Trinity." He is referred to as God’s servant/child, the Christ/Messiah, the Son of David, the Savior, and so on. But you won't find references like "Light from Light, True God from True God, of one substance with the Father." Similarly, there is no mention of the "Holy Spirit" being referred to as “the Lord(ly One)” who is “worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son." There are no clear declarations stating, “God exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who have distinct personalities but are of the same substance, one God,” as many churches describe in their "What We Believe" statements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.