Genesis 18
Comments
-
@Wolfgang said:
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans 9:5)
This is a trinitarian colored translation and punctuation ... the Christ, the Messiah is NOT God, but he is the man whom GOD has sent (cp. Jesus' own words). This false translation contradicts Jesus's own words.
"This is a trinitarian colored translation and punctuation ..." Please do explain this. CM
“The Father and I are one.”” (John 10:30)
The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν (hen esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).
Indeed ... Jesus and God are not one "person", but rather Jesus makes reference to a unity between them. Jesus himself spoke about this unity he had with God, his Father, repeatedly and mentions that it was a unity OF PURPOSE, a unity OF MIND ... cp. his words about always doing what pleases God.
The introduction of the idea of "essence" causes essentially the same problem and error as if one were to claim the two were one person. See, the term "God" does NEVER refer to an essence (by the way, what is this "essence" supposed to be? flesh and blood? spirit? something else?), but it refers to an acting spirit "person", the Creator of heaven and earth, the Almighty, etc.
“The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”” (John 10:33)
Were the Jews correct in their accusation? NO !! Jesus NEVER had claimed that he was God! He had claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah whom God had sent and of whom the prophets of old already had prophesied. They made a false accusation!
Jesus himself made some interesting statements about himself.
Jesus is one with God the Father-- John 10:30-33. Is he lying or crazy?
How did Jesus identify Himself? What did He say about His pre-existence?
-- John 8:58_____
-- John 17:5_____When Jesus came to earth He did not cease to be God. He claimed that He was the I AM of the Old Testament. (Compare Ex. 3:14.) The prophet Micah had predicted that the Messiah would be the One who had existed from the days of eternity (Micah 5:2), and Jesus taught that He was that One. At the same time, we have assurances that Jesus was fully human. Scripture says what this means to us. See Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7; Heb. 4:15, 16.
Jesus Christ did not come to demonstrate how God can obey His own law. His purpose was to show how humans can obey God's law by relying upon their heavenly Father for strength. In so doing, Christ demonstrated the justice and fairness of God. In Christ, the Deity was manifested in humanity. Jesus was born of a woman (Luke 1:30-35). He was God "manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). His favorite name for Himself was "Son of man." (See Matt. 11:19; Mark 2:28; Luke 21:27; John 3:14.)
Although He was fully human and was tempted just as we are, Jesus never sinned. (See 1 Peter. 2:22, 23; John 8:46; Heb. 7:26.) If Jesus had been a sinner, then Satan would have claimed that his criticism of the law of God was correct. He would have accused God of injustice in expecting His created beings to obey His law. By relying upon His Father for victory, Jesus was able to overcome every one of Satan's temptations.
When here on earth, although remaining fully God, Jesus laid aside the use of His divine attributes for Himself. While Jesus and his claims were rejected by a number of his contemporaries (John 7:46-49), there were others who believed in him:
Mk 15:39 -- A Gentile, namely a Roman centurion.
Mt 16:16 -- Peter, one of his disciples.
John 11:27 -- Martha, a woman who followed him.
John 20:25-28 – Thomas, a skeptic.
Rom 9:5 & Col 2:9 – Paul who had persecuted the Christians and denied the Lordship of Jesus. Are all these deceived?When it comes to How the Bible defines blasphemy, lok again at John 10:30-33:
- “I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”
Mark 2:5-7
“When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?”The Bible defines blasphemy as assuming any rights or power that belong to God alone. A man claiming to be God or having the power to forgive sins is blasphemy. Jesus did not commit blasphemy because He is God.
The major events of Christ's life were foretold by prophets of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers constantly appeal to Christ's fulfillment of the prophecies as the best evidence for His Deity and Messiahship. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans 9:5)
This is a trinitarian colored translation and punctuation ... the Christ, the Messiah is NOT God, but he is the man whom GOD has sent (cp. Jesus' own words). This false translation contradicts Jesus's own words.
"This is a trinitarian colored translation and punctuation ..." Please do explain this. CM
Rom 9:5, when punctuated properly, reads:
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ. God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen.”To translate and punctuate in a manner which makes Christ to be over all, or to make Christ to be God over all, flat out contradicts the most basic Biblical truth that God has send Christ .... the one being sent, Christ is not over God Who sent him.
Trinity doctrine creates contradictions in Scripture and then suggest to supposedly solve those self-inflicted contradictions by making "God" to be only "part of God" by dividing God up into three (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). Since this idea produces the next problem because God should not be "partitioned", they in addition claim that these three are actually three but "in another sense" not "three" and only "one", etc .... and on and on it goes in error circles ...
It continues until most "sheep who hear the Trinity preaching voice" get so confused and tired that they submit to the attitude of "well, the scholars and learned folk say so and know it, and because I can't follow it I just need to believe it" ... and the proponents of the LIE have succeeded in that the truth the God is only One and not three has been buried and the non-biblical Trinity "mystery" religion has deceived another innocent person into believing the lie. -
@C_M_ said:
Jesus himself made some interesting statements about himself.
Jesus is one with God the Father-- John 10:30-33. Is he lying or crazy?
He was speaking the truth ... BUT those who misinterpret him as meaning "I am the same as God" are perhaps ignorant, misled or worse
How did Jesus identify Himself? What did He say about His pre-existence?
-- John 8:58_____
-- John 17:5_____He believed and declared that he was that Messiah Whom God had promised to sent, that he thus existed in God's plan and foreknowledge.
Please note, Jesus did NOT say anything about "I was God before I became human" ...When Jesus came to earth He did not cease to be God.
But Jesus never was God in the first place, nor did he claim to have been ...
He claimed that He was the I AM of the Old Testament. (Compare Ex. 3:14.)
This is a false claim .... when you compare Jesus words in the Greek in Joh 8.58 with the wording in the Greek LXX translation of Exo 3:14, you can easily notice that Jesus only used the pronoun "I" and the word "am" (egw eimi) , he did NOT use the words "the one who is" (0hw wn) which represent "the I AM" in Exo.
The prophet Micah had predicted that the Messiah would be the One who had existed from the days of eternity (Micah 5:2), and Jesus taught that He was that One.
Certainly, the Messiah existed in God's plan and foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world ..( cp 1Pe 1:20 !!) But, the Messiah was NOT the living God nor one of three "persons" of God, He was to be a human being, a man!
At the same time, we have assurances that Jesus was fully human. Scripture says what this means to us. See Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7; Heb. 4:15, 16.
Scripture states that Jesus was a man, a human being, born of a woman. Nothing about "at the same time" or "in addition" or "at one time this, later that ...." he was something or someone else.
Jesus Christ did not come to demonstrate how God can obey His own law.
Of course not ... because he was NOT God. He did demonstrate how man can obey God's will and carry out what God asks of him or commands him to do!
His purpose was to show how humans can obey God's law by relying upon their heavenly Father for strength.
Exactly .... so then, why erroneously claim and believe that he was (also) God ?
In so doing, Christ demonstrated the justice and fairness of God. In Christ, the Deity was manifested in humanity.
NO ... Christ demonstrated God's will in all that he did and said. He was not "a manifestation of God". He manifested God through his obedience to God by his words and his deed being in harmony with what God wanted said and done.
Jesus was born of a woman (Luke 1:30-35). He was God "manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). His favorite name for Himself was "Son of man." (See Matt. 11:19; Mark 2:28; Luke 21:27; John 3:14.)
Indeed ... all showing that Jesus was NOT God, and rather that He was a human being.
Although He was fully human and was tempted just as we are, Jesus never sinned. (See 1 Peter. 2:22, 23; John 8:46; Heb. 7:26.)
Are you trying to imply here that we are not "fully" human because we do sin at times?
If Jesus had been a sinner, then Satan would have claimed that his criticism of the law of God was correct. He would have accused God of injustice in expecting His created beings to obey His law. By relying upon His Father for victory, Jesus was able to overcome every one of Satan's temptations.
Are you trying to say that Jesus did not sin, because he was MORE than fully human? If the reason for Jesus being able to not sin was that he was God, then God could not hold us responsible for sinning because we are "only" human ...
When here on earth, although remaining fully God, Jesus laid aside the use of His divine attributes for Himself.
This is plain non-sense ... "a silly justification" to sort of "explain" something which doesn't even exist. God NEVER "lays aside His attributes" ... that is a plain stupid thought !!
While Jesus and his claims were rejected by a number of his contemporaries (John 7:46-49), there were others who believed in him:
BUT note carefully => neither the rejection nor the believing on him had anything to do with "Jesus = God", but had to do with "Jesus = the promised Christ, the promised Messiah" whom God had promised to send
Mk 15:39 -- A Gentile, namely a Roman centurion.
Mt 16:16 -- Peter, one of his disciples.
John 11:27 -- Martha, a woman who followed him.
John 20:25-28 – Thomas, a skeptic.
Rom 9:5 & Col 2:9 – Paul who had persecuted the Christians and denied the Lordship of Jesus. Are all these deceived?No ... they believed in Jesus being the Messiah, the Christ !! The ones who are deceived are those who believe in Jesus being God.
When it comes to How the Bible defines blasphemy, lok again at John 10:30-33:
- “I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”
Mark 2:5-7
“When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?”The Bible defines blasphemy as assuming any rights or power that belong to God alone.
Not true .... or do you want to tell us that Moses committed blasphemy by working miracles? What about Elijah or Elisha who definitely did things that were miraculous?
The Bible defines blasphemy as FALSELY claiming to have rights and power which belongs to God ... Moses, Elijah and Elisha and of course Jesus were doing what they did because God had bestowed His power and authority on them ... they were NOT acting in their own authority and power
A man claiming to be God or having the power to forgive sins is blasphemy. Jesus did not commit blasphemy because He is God.##
No ... the reason Jesus did not commit blasphemy was because God had anointed him with spirit and power (cp Acts 10:38) and because he did what he did as commissioned by God.
The major events of Christ's life were foretold by prophets of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers constantly appeal to Christ's fulfillment of the prophecies as the best evidence for His Deity and Messiahship. CM
Yes, the prophets of old prophesied of the coming Messiah and their prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus.
BUT, please note => the prophets of old NEVER foretold that God would change and become a human being, that God would sent one person of three persons of Himself, that God, etc etc. The prophecies were about the Messiah being a human being, the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David ... NOTHING at all about Messiah being Deity. Or are you willing to say that Abraham and David were "God" fathers ? -
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe Peter's interpretation of baptizing in Jesus' name, being the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit proves he understood the deity of Christ. He writes:But Dave_L, Peter DID NOT interpret as you claim ... this is YOUR interpretation, and this particular interpretation is not even considering basic details of the text
“They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory.” (1 Peter 1:11) (NET)
What does this have to do with the above point about 2 different baptisms ?
Peter interpreted Jesus' command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by baptizing all "in the name of Jesus Christ."
I'm not interpreting this. I'm only reading throughout Acts about Peter doing this.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe Peter's interpretation of baptizing in Jesus' name, being the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit proves he understood the deity of Christ. He writes:But Dave_L, Peter DID NOT interpret as you claim ... this is YOUR interpretation, and this particular interpretation is not even considering basic details of the text
Peter interpreted Jesus' command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by baptizing all "in the name of Jesus Christ."
I'm not interpreting this. I'm only reading throughout Acts about Peter doing this.
Throughout the book of Acts you read that the words mentioned first by Peter on the day of Pentecost were carried out and baptism is always mentioned as having been "in the name of Jesus Christ" (and never "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" which had been Jesus' very words.
But, you then are interpreting the text used in Acts by your claim that the words "the name of Jesus Christ" are Peter's interpretation of "the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost"I notice that such an interpretation is unwarranted and makes it sound as if Peter's idea of changing Jesus' very words was almost a necessary interpretive measure ... why would Peter need to interpret Jesus' words and change what he said? and especially so if Jesus' words had really included the Trinity, which is the only place where such a phrase occurs? Such interpretation by Peter would actually take much away from Jesus' words and come up with a phrase which no longer has any hint even at the Trinity ???
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe Peter's interpretation of baptizing in Jesus' name, being the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit proves he understood the deity of Christ. He writes:But Dave_L, Peter DID NOT interpret as you claim ... this is YOUR interpretation, and this particular interpretation is not even considering basic details of the text
Peter interpreted Jesus' command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by baptizing all "in the name of Jesus Christ."
I'm not interpreting this. I'm only reading throughout Acts about Peter doing this.
Throughout the book of Acts you read that the words mentioned first by Peter on the day of Pentecost were carried out and baptism is always mentioned as having been "in the name of Jesus Christ" (and never "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" which had been Jesus' very words.
But, you then are interpreting the text used in Acts by your claim that the words "the name of Jesus Christ" are Peter's interpretation of "the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost"I notice that such an interpretation is unwarranted and makes it sound as if Peter's idea of changing Jesus' very words was almost a necessary interpretive measure ... why would Peter need to interpret Jesus' words and change what he said? and especially so if Jesus' words had really included the Trinity, which is the only place where such a phrase occurs? Such interpretation by Peter would actually take much away from Jesus' words and come up with a phrase which no longer has any hint even at the Trinity ???
Peter obviously understood the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being Jesus Christ. And baptized accordingly. This in itself says Jesus is YHWH.
If we adjust our understanding of the less clear passages to the clear passages, we can develop a precise view.
-
@Dave_L said:
Peter obviously understood the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being Jesus Christ. And baptized accordingly. This in itself says Jesus is YHWH.?? confusion reigns and words don't mean what they actually say (not in a literal sense nor in a figurative sense) ??
Jesus is absolutely not YHWH, he is the only begotten Son of YHWH, he is YHWH's sent Messiah.If we adjust our understanding of the less clear passages to the clear passages, we can develop a precise view.
Indeed ... thereby it is clear that the currently found wording in Mt 28:19 most likely can NOT have been the original wording, because the many clear passages throughout the book of Acts concerning the same subject matter say something different.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Peter obviously understood the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being Jesus Christ. And baptized accordingly. This in itself says Jesus is YHWH.?? confusion reigns and words don't mean what they actually say (not in a literal sense nor in a figurative sense) ??
Jesus is absolutely not YHWH, he is the only begotten Son of YHWH, he is YHWH's sent Messiah.If we adjust our understanding of the less clear passages to the clear passages, we can develop a precise view.
Indeed ... thereby it is clear that the currently found wording in Mt 28:19 most likely can NOT have been the original wording, because the many clear passages throughout the book of Acts concerning the same subject matter say something different.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matthew 28:19) (KJV 1900)
“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) (ESV)
“Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19) (NLT)
““Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NASB95)
“Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3) (NET)
“(For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts 8:16) (NET)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” (Acts 19:5) (NET)
“Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)
-
@Dave_L said:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matthew 28:19) (KJV 1900)
“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) (ESV)
“Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19) (NLT)
““Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NASB95)All manuscripts known today which contain Mt 28:19 stem from the time after the council of Nicea in 325AD and have this Trinity supporting somewhat strange wording.
However, in some of Eusebius' works dating from before the council of Nicea, he makes reference to Mt 28:19 without the part "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" and with the wording "make disciples of all nations in my name" which indicates that he apparently had manuscripts of the Biblical text to which he was referring that did NOT have the Trinity wording.“Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3) (NET)
“(For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts 8:16) (NET)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” (Acts 19:5) (NET)
“Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)Peter in Acts 2:38 -- only a few days after the time when Jesus had given them his commandment ! -- does NOT mention the Trinity wording about baptism, instead he uses only "the name of the Son" (and there is nothing about the name of the Father" or "the name of the Holy Ghost") !!
Later on, as the other records from Acts and NT epistles show, any other record concerning baptism also says nothing about "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" either ... but use exactly the wording which Peter had mentioned on the day of Pentecost.If the Trinity was such an important and even essential central part of church doctrine and if Jesus had introduced the Trinity shortly before his ascension, it would be very odd and strange, if that Trinity wording in the commandment was not carried out by the apostles, but rather Peter changed Jesus' words.
-
@Wolfgang said:
"rather Peter changed Jesus' words."
No, Wolfgang changed Peter's and Jesus' words. If Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Peter and the others baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ is the NT name for God.
Plus, many references exist showing the trinity throughout the NT which also sheds light on the OT "plural" references to God as well. Also many references showing Christ's deity exist as well. Especially in the newer translations.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
"rather Peter changed Jesus' words."
No, Wolfgang changed Peter's and Jesus' words. If Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Peter and the others baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ is the NT name for God.Where did I change Peter's words? Nowhere. Neither did I change Jesus' words, rather I noticed a rather strange discrepancy between (a) what later manuscripts and modern day translations have, and (b) the words Jesus always used when speaking to his disciples and mentioning or commanding them something in relation to his name => it was NEVER in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost!
"Jesus Christ" is NOT a name, thus already for that reason your assumption that it is the name of God must be wrong.
Plus, many references exist showing the trinity throughout the NT which also sheds light on the OT "plural" references to God as well. Also many references showing Christ's deity exist as well. Especially in the newer translations.
There is not one reference showing the Trinity in either the OT nor the NT ... there are numerous interpretations by Trinitarians who interpret certain passages out of context and out of an overall scope of Scripture to give the impression of a Trinity.
-
If we cannot trust Peter to interpret Jesus for us, who can we trust? If we deny baptism in Jesus' name as fulfilling his command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why not deny all of the bible and move on to something else?
-
@Dave_L said:
If we cannot trust Peter to interpret Jesus for us, who can we trust?The records in Acts are NOT about Peter interpreting anything ...
If we deny baptism in Jesus' name as fulfilling his command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why not deny all of the bible and move on to something else?
Peter did NOT fulfill a command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost ... he clearly did NOT follow this command, nor did anyone else and thus there is no record in NT Scripture that a command of "in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost" was carried out. Instead, a command of "in my [Jesus'] name" was carried out in all instances recorded in Acts or other NT scriptures.
All those instances agree on what was done and in whose name (that is, the name of Jesus Christ ... but NOT the name of the Father or the name of the Holy Ghost) it was done. The very simple truth is easily seen.
Why would Jesus all of a sudden change his tune to talk about the Trinity (which nobody had even thought about until thoughts in that direction were introduced by some church fathers approx. a century later)?
-
Peter did exactly what Jesus told him to do. Where do you see anyone baptizing the the names (plural) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the NT? It is not there. You must agree with the catholics and others who ignore Peter and baptize in the trinitarian tradition.
-
@Dave_L said:
Peter did exactly what Jesus told him to do.I totally agree ... so what Peter did, was exactly what Jesus told them "make disciples .... IN MY NAME" (and not "... in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost" ) !!
Where do you see anyone baptizing the the names (plural) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the NT? It is not there.
Exactly ... since I would think that the apostles had not forgotten what Jesus had told them nor did they take the liberty to change "Jesus" into "Father, Son, Holy Ghost Trinity"!!
You must agree with the catholics and others who ignore Peter and baptize in the trinitarian tradition.
No ... that is actually what - in a sense - you do. They at least use the words which both they and you believe Jesus commanded ("Father, Son and Holy Ghost" Trinity), whereas you make Peter to have interpreted those words to "Jesus Christ". In an earlier post, you actually go beyond the Roman Catholics and claim that "Jesus Christ" is the NT name for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
-
You cannot produce one shred of scripture that says the Apostles baptized in the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Of the baptisms mentioned, all were in the name of Jesus Christ. Or they were mentioned in passing without name details given.
-
The Holy Spirit fully God
Through the centuries many have regarded the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead, as only a divine "active force" or power that God the Father used to accomplish His will. The Holy Spirit in a way that shows He is not mindless divine energy, but a real person, just as the Father and the Son are.
The gender usage. First, notice the gender the New Testament uses to refer to the Spirit. Greek, like many other languages, has masculine, feminine, and neuter forms of words (he, she, it). But passages such as John 14:26; 16:8, 13-15 employ the masculine form of the pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit ekeinos, instead of the neuter ekeino. If the Holy Spirit were only a "force" or "influence," John should have used the neuter gender.
A conscious being. Second, Scripture constantly mentions characteristics of the Holy Spirit that can fit only a conscious being. For example, the Bible says that
-- The Holy Spirit speaks (see Rev. 2:7; Acts 13:2).
-- Makes intercession (see Rom. 8:26).
-- Calls, oversees, commands (see Acts 16:6, 7; 20:28).
-- Teaches (see John 14:26).
-- Glorifies Christ (see John 16:14).
-- Counsels (see John 14:16).
-- May be grieved (see Eph. 4:30).
-- May be insulted, "outraged" (see Heb. 10:29)
-- Can be lied to (see Acts 5:3).
-- Can be blasphemed and sinned against (see Matt. 12:31,32).Romans 8:27 talks about "the mind of the Spirit." Do forces or influences have minds? Such biblical description is far more than personification. The Bible writers would hardly equate a personified force with two actual Beings as Matthew did in the baptismal formula (see Matt. 28:19), or as Paul did in the apostolic benediction (see 2 Cor. 13:13).
Equal with God. Third, the Bible does more than just link the Spirit with the Father and the Son in doxologies. For example, Paul, in Acts 28:25, records the Holy Spirit as having said what Isaiah 6:8-10 has the Lord declaring. The Spirit also has such divine attributes as omniscience (see 1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (see Ps. 139:7). Both the Old and the New Testaments describe the Holy Spirit as God's special representative on earth. Most of the time you could substitute Lord or God in each reference to the Holy Spirit, and the passage would still mean the same thing.
Truth found truth shared. CM
-
@Dave_L said:
You cannot produce one shred of scripture that says the Apostles baptized in the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Of the baptisms mentioned, all were in the name of Jesus Christ. Or they were mentioned in passing without name details given.Exactly .....
Dave_L, I have always said that there is NO baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost mentioned anywhere in the NT scriptures ... Now then, why is there no such evidence IF Jesus really had commanded them "to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" ???Every mention of baptism spoken of and/or conducted by the apostles in the book of Acts and NT scriptures is "in the name of Messiah [Christ] Jesus" ... all those scriptures agree, and with that wording all are in harmony with the truth that Jesus normally always had commanded them to carry out things "in my [that is, in Jesus'] name"
This rather clearly indicates to me, and the evidence found in quotations of Mt 28:19 in writings of Eusebius confirms it, that Eusebius in those writings was quoting from manuscript(s) that had the wording "in my name" and NOT "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost". That "Trinity wording" is found in Eusebius' writings only after the council of Nicea when the Trinity dogma was officially installed and anyone not adhering to it was "anathema".
-
You cannot throw out scripture on hearsay. If you can throw out any, you can throw it all away. The fact that all reliable translations include Matthew 28:19 in exactly the same phrasing, shows it is part of scripture. And the fact that every mention of baptism in the NT where a name is involved, uses Jesus Christ, and not "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".
History shows that the catholics (according to their history) replaced the biblical model for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, with "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Please note the following.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 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."
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 states:
"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."
Post edited by Dave_L on -
@Dave_L said:
You cannot throw out scripture on hearsay. If you can throw out any, you can throw it all away.No scripture is thrown out ... all scripture is examined and compared with each other .. and if there are seeming discrepancies (like in this case the "sore thumb" verse in Mt 28:19 as compared with all other scriptures about the very same topic), then the one strange passage must be evaluated in light of the many clear passages.
The fact that all reliable translations include Matthew 28:19 in exactly the same phrasing, shows it is part of scripture.
No, it only shows that the existing manuscripts that contain Mt 28:19 - which all are from a time later than the council of Nicea 325 AD - have this wording which does not agree with all the clear passages from Acts and other NT scriptures about the same topic.
A look at the writings of Eusebius, who did make reference to that verse in his various writings shows, that he used the version with the Trinity formula only in works after the council of Nicea, but quoted the verse in earlier writings in a form which has the wording found in all the other passages in Acts, etc ... So then, which wording seems to have been the original in Mt 28:19?
I would say, it is the one which has the same wording as all other passages.
And the fact that every mention of baptism in the NT where a name is involved, uses Jesus Christ, and not "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".
Exactly ... and this is the very reason why that phrase in Mt 28:19 is rather suspicious to be a later change and manipulation in the text by those who desired to promote the trinity.
History shows that the catholics (according to their history) replaced the biblical model for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, with "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Please note the following.
I would suspect that the original text in Mt 28:19 was replaced after the council of Nicea to seemingly provide "scriptural proof" for the trinity doctrine. The forgers didn't quite consider the whole of scripture ... or it was impossible to forge all other passages.
"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."
Indeed ... the apostles carried out what Jesus had commanded (which was NOT something about Trinity), which was to make disciples in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
-
But, Jesus commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Which means Jesus Christ is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
"in the name of the Lord" = Jesus Christ, if only one baptism took place in his name. But we have several instances where they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
-
See the baptismal formula (Rev. 1:5-6) and liturgical aspect in the last book.
5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. CM -
@Dave_L said:
But, Jesus commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.two different things ... and the question is which of the two is authentic and reflects the original text?
I would say the principle of understanding the one seemingly difficult verse must be understood in light of the many clear verses applies in this case ...Thus it is not the many clear verses in Acts and the rest of the NT scriptures which all agree on "in the name of Jesus Christ" which are problematic but the one odd verse in Mt 28:19 which must be examined further as it is the only place that says something different.As I have pointed out already, the textual evidence is that manuscripts and texts after the council of Nicea in 325 AD all have the wording "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" while it can be seen from writings of Eusebius which are from the time prior to that council that he apparently quoted from manuscripts which had "in my name [Jesus Christ]"
Which means Jesus Christ is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
While it sounds "logical", this statement is simply false / incorrect. Jesus Christ (Jehoschua) is NOT the name of the Father, as the Bible states that His name is YHWH.
"in the name of the Lord" = Jesus Christ, if only one baptism took place in his name. But we have several instances where they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
?? what is this supposed to say ?
-
@C_M_ said:
See the baptismal formula (Rev. 1:5-6) and liturgical aspect in the last book.
5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. CMRev 1:5-6 is a baptismal formula ???
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
But, Jesus commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.two different things ... and the question is which of the two is authentic and reflects the original text?
I would say the principle of understanding the one seemingly difficult verse must be understood in light of the many clear verses applies in this case ...Thus it is not the many clear verses in Acts and the rest of the NT scriptures which all agree on "in the name of Jesus Christ" which are problematic but the one odd verse in Mt 28:19 which must be examined further as it is the only place that says something different.As I have pointed out already, the textual evidence is that manuscripts and texts after the council of Nicea in 325 AD all have the wording "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" while it can be seen from writings of Eusebius which are from the time prior to that council that he apparently quoted from manuscripts which had "in my name [Jesus Christ]"
Which means Jesus Christ is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
While it sounds "logical", this statement is simply false / incorrect. Jesus Christ (Jehoschua) is NOT the name of the Father, as the Bible states that His name is YHWH.
"in the name of the Lord" = Jesus Christ, if only one baptism took place in his name. But we have several instances where they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
?? what is this supposed to say ?
If all standard translations include "baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", and the Apostles baptized in Jesus' name, then Jesus Christ is not only the name of the triune God, it also proves Jesus IS God.
If you can reject this, any scripture is up for grabs.
-
The > @Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
See the baptismal formula (Rev. 1:5-6) and liturgical aspect in the last book.Rev 1:5-6 is a baptismal formula ???
Yes, The text contains the Trinitarian greetings that merge into a climatic song of praise to the glorified Christ for his great acts of salvation on behalf of his people.
I. Rev 1:5-- The faithful witness, the first-born from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
These three titles are evidently an allusion to Psalm 89 of the Greek Old Testament which is entirely about the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7:8–16.
In Psalm 89:27,37, the descendant of David is referred to as the first-born of Yahweh and “the highest of the kings of the earth.” It is promised that he will be established on the throne as “the faithful witness in heaven.”
Witness. The Greek word martus normally means “witness.” Around the time the book of Revelation was written, many faithful witnesses in the early church had been killed for their faith. The word martus also came to mean “martyr,” namely, “one who witnessed unto death” (cf. Rev. 2:13), whereas “the death of Jesus was regarded as the first martyrdom.”
II. The first-born from the dead.
The Greek prōtotokos means literally “first-born” and is taken from Psalm 89:27 for David’s descendant:- *“I also shall make him My first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.” This text was interpreted by Jewish scholars as a reference to the coming of the Messiah.
The title “the first-born from the dead” is used by
- Paul in Colossians 1:18 where, as in Revelation 1:5, Jesus is declared the sovereign occupant of the first place of honor and glory (cf. Phil. 2:5–11).
- Suggests that by virtue of his resurrection, Jesus occupies the first place of honor and supremacy and has highest authority over the earth as “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:5).
III. The One who loves us (lit. “the one loving us”).
- The present participle suggests a present and ongoing action: he loves us now and goes on loving us.
- Released us from our sins is an aorist (past tense) participle pointing to an action completed at a point in time.
- Unlike the love of Jesus which is continuous and present, the release from sin is a past, completed action.
Rev. 1:6 Made us a kingdom, priests is in the aorist indicative, denoting “what has been ideally or potentially accomplished in the purpose of God.”
I hope this helps? CM
SOURCE:
-- [Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 71]. -
@Jan said:
Who are the three visitors in Genesis 18 - are they messengers, or are they YHWH?The three messengers of Yahweh who announce the impending birth of Isaac is the premier example of hospitality in the Hebrew Bible. Other examples of hospitality in the Hebrew Bible include Joshua 2:1-24; 1 Kings 17:8-24; 2 Kings 4:8-36; Psalm 23. Genesis 18 is an exemplary description of the elements of ideal Jewish hospitality and it does so in the context of a divine visitation.
1. Genesis 18 is a divine visit: “the Lord appeared to him [i.e., Abraham.].
On this matter, Sailhamer states:
- “In opening the narrative with the statement that the Lord ‘appeared’ to Abraham, the author leaves no doubt that in some (albeit unexplained) way, these men represented the Lord’s appearance to Abraham....However one sorts out the details of the story, the fact remains that, in sum, the events of the chapter constitute an account of the Lord’s appearance to Abraham".
-- John H. Sailhamer [The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical- Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 160-161]
-- Robert Ignatius Letellier [Day in Mamre, Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18 and 19 (BIS 10; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 80] notes that ha*r` in the niphal “is overwhelmingly associated with the theophany, the self-manifestation of God.”
-- Claus Westerman [Genesis 12 – 36 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1985) 275] argues, however, that Genesis 18 “does not belong to any of the types of divine-appearance in the Old Testament” and, for this, reason “the title in v. 1a, ‘Yahweh appeared to Abraham,’ is redactional.”
2. While there is no explicit mention of transformations or disguises, the Lord visits Abraham through the medium of “three men”.
In the Hebrew Bible God characteristically appears – when he does so – in the form of a human.
-- James Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 31-38.
-- On the theophanic features of Gen 18, see Letellier, Day in Mamre, Night in Sodom, 88-93.3. While numerous theories have been advanced, it seems best to see all three men as mediators of the presence of God to Abraham. For a good discussion, see below:
-- William John Lyons, Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative (JSOTSS 352; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 151-157.
I hope this brings greater light to the subject matter. CM
-
C_M
it might just be better to simply read the Scriptures instead of having the text clouded and muddied by lots of theological non-sensical quotes from other authors
-
Ah, "I guess I can't win for losing" with you?
CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
