Question...

[rlm68]

You are a Modalist my friend. Please repent of this.

You have no idea who or what I am. But one thing is definite, you are judging me, when I have provided factual scripture to show the FIRST CHURCH did NOT baptize in your bastardized trinity!! And the TORAH, which is 3,000 years OLDER than the Bible you use, claims Elohim means singular as in ONE PERSON GOD!!

 

[rlm68]

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."

 

[rlm68]

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

 

[rlm68]

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer triune formula was a later development."


What this states IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT:

There is proof the FIRST CHURCH baptized in Jesus NAME!!
There is NO PROOF they ever baptized in the trinity!!

Why is there NO PROOF in the New Testament of anyone baptizing in the trinity, but we HAVE PROOF in ACTS they baptized in Jesus NAME?

 

[rlm68]

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

 

[rlm68]

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

 

[rlm68]

Tell ya what...I will try to accept the trinity concept if you can show me in the BIBLE where they baptized in the titles!!

After all, I have Paul (the man who wrote 2/3 of the New testament) baptizing in the Name of Jesus.

And if I was a betting man, seeing how Paul baptized Jesus NAME, not the trinity...I would bet because they know God is not 3 persons!!

 

[trofimus]

I do not want to mess up with your faith, but many things in the Old Testament are later additions.

Christians must decide if only originals are inspired or if also the additions.

And if something is not "inspired" or "original", then it automatically does not equal "wrong" or "antichristian".

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Nah, it reeks of butthurt people who are comfortable in mommy and daddy's tradition, and everyone else must be wrong!!

Quite the Christian language you used here, my friend.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

I do not want to mess up with your faith, but many things in the Old Testament are later additions.

Christians must decide if only originals are inspired or if also the additions.

And if something is not "inspired" or "original", then it automatically does not equal "wrong" or "antichristian".

And here is a reason why I say you have such a low view of the bible. Now you can decide for yourself what is and what is not scripture.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Acts is just a historical book, not a book of doctrine. It just records what apostles did. Not what we must do.

Another reason why I say you have such a low view of scripture. Acts is just a historical book my friend? How do you know what is and what is not scripture, my friend?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

You sound BUTTHURT in your responses!!

Try exlax, it will help you get past your denial that the Hebrews know who God is, and you obviously don't have a clue!!

My friend, you have some unseemly language in your posts that should not be allowed on here. Please clean your language up on a Christian site.

 

[trofimus]

And here is a reason why I say you have such a low view of the bible. Now you can decide for yourself what is and what is not scripture.

We both have the same sources, so you cannot have some special Bible I do not have. Therefore you must also solve this problem and have some answer to it, not just attack a person who says it.

 

[trofimus]

Another reason why I say you have such a low view of scripture. Acts is just a historical book my friend? How do you know what is and what is not scripture, my friend?

To say that Acts is a history, not doctrine, is a low view of Scripture?

How can simple facts be a low view? Please...

It seems to me that you have so much fear regarding the Bible that you cannot say anything factual about it. Do you, for example, know that verses and chapters were added later?

 

[Angela53510]

To say that Acts is a history, not doctrine, is a low view of Scripture?

How can simple facts be a low view? Please...

It seems to me that you have so much fear regarding the Bible that you cannot say anything factual about it. Do you, for example, know that verses and chapters were added later?

Verses and chapters are for convenience and were added by Stephanus, I believe in the 15th century AD. That is easy to look up! They were conclusively added much later, are not inspired, but certainly are useful.

The actual words of the Bible are a totally different story. You have lost connection with the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. You are falling away from the truth of the Word of God.

I pray you will come back to your senses, and trust that God has left us with a trustworthy repository of the revelation of God!

 

[Nehemiah6]

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism.

This statement is patently false.

There is no dispute that Mt 28:19 is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and even the critical texts do not question this verse. Furthermore, quotations from early Christian writings from the 2nd century onwards confirm that baptism was in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904 (identical to Received Text)
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

New International Version
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
New Living Translation
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
English Standard Version
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,
New American Standard Bible
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
King James Bible
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Holman Christian Standard Bible
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,
International Standard Version
Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
NET Bible
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
GOD'S WORD® Translation
So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Jubilee Bible 2000
Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
King James 2000 Bible
Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:
American King James Version
Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
American Standard Version
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Darby Bible Translation
Go [therefore] and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;
English Revised Version
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:
Webster's Bible Translation
Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Weymouth New Testament
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;
World English Bible
Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Young's Literal Translation
having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Quantrill]

Tell ya what...I will try to accept the trinity concept if you can show me in the BIBLE where they baptized in the titles!!

After all, I have Paul (the man who wrote 2/3 of the New testament) baptizing in the Name of Jesus.

And if I was a betting man, seeing how Paul baptized Jesus NAME, not the trinity...I would bet because they know God is not 3 persons!!

That's a lie.

You keep speaking of the baptism in Acts in Jesus name. Give the verses you are addressing.

You doubt (Matt. 28:19) because, as you say, it is disputed. That proves nothing. You have textual critics out there that dispute the whole Bible. So, big deal.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

Eusebius statement is not Scripture. And your statement that 'Eusebius informs of Jesus' actual words' is based only on what you want to believe. We have Jesus's actual words in (Matt. 28:19).

Plus, Eusebius himself is of very questionable credibility having close ties to Origen and the Alexandrian school of interpretation.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

Verses and chapters are for convenience and were added by Stephanus, I believe in the 15th century AD. That is easy to look up! They were conclusively added much later, are not inspired, but certainly are useful.

The actual words of the Bible are a totally different story. You have lost connection with the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. You are falling away from the truth of the Word of God.

I pray you will come back to your senses, and trust that God has left us with a trustworthy repository of the revelation of God!

"You, you you" and again no answer to facts. No solutions. No definitions. Just judgements.

 

[Quantrill]

To say that Acts is a history, not doctrine, is a low view of Scripture?

How can simple facts be a low view? Please...

It seems to me that you have so much fear regarding the Bible that you cannot say anything factual about it. Do you, for example, know that verses and chapters were added later?

Acts is history, and we can develop doctrine from it.

Big deal. Verse numbering and Chapter numbering were added later. It helps.

Quantrill