Jehovah’s Witnesses

[Webers.Home]

.
I'm at a loss to explain a theophany let alone a trilogy, e.g. Ex 24:9-11
where God is viewed in a human form by Moses and a number of his
associates.

Jesus is a very unusual theophany in that his human origin is owed to Adam,
whereas the Old Testament's theophanies have no ancestors to speak of.
_

 

[RR]

So you answered the easy question but what happened to the responses, from you, on the verses I gave to you in which the Bible says that Jesus Christ is God?

You say that God is not Triune. Okay. You also state, that the Bible does not speak directly to God's Trinity - That is true, however, many truths are discovered by putting together certain Bible statements that require thought and reasonable conclusions. Therefore, I am compelled to ask you to explain the following, from the Bible, if God is not Triune.

How is this observation possible?

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
Mat 3:17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

There is only one reasonable explanation for this account -
1) JESUS - Second person of the God-head - who came in the flesh.
2) THE SPIRIT - Third person of the God-head.
3) A VOICE - The Father - First person of the God-head.

Please explain how ONE - non Triune God, could accomplish this?

So what triune god was Jesus baptized under?

 

[williamjordan]

I got the point you were trying to make but I was pointing out, that as true believers, we should not sink down to an argument that matches their worldly philosophical and humanistic view. Rather we should argue from the Holy Scriptures and the Scriptures alone. All else is irrelevant. That is why I stated: " Any belief system, worth a grain of salt, must be based on Scripture and Scripture alone. Not upon adopted creeds or church history or tradition... unless they agree with the objective Truth of God revealed in His Holy Word. " Paul warned Timothy to avoid such.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;
1Ti 6:21 which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you.

You got the point I was making, you say? Riddle me this, then: How then do you still miss the fact that it was not I that was stooping to lows "that matches their worldly philosophical and humanistic view"?

Pointing out what is a very obvious hole in a given narrative does not require me to "sink down to an argument." It's simply called: Using their own argument, paradigm, and worldviews against them, something Paul himself does in Acts 17:29 where he cites secular philosophers in a context where he had just finished engaging Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18). Do you think Paul cited the OT when he engaged pagan detractors? No. He used their own literature, paradigms, and frameworks against them.

You don't go citing the Bible to an unbeliever, because for one: They already don't agree with it.

 

[awelight]

So what triune god was Jesus baptized under?

Now you want to play games.... I asked you to explain the record - Not ask another question while you ignore my posted question. Just in case you forgot my question - here it is again:

How is this observation possible?

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
Mat 3:17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

There is only one reasonable explanation for this account -
1) JESUS - Second person of the God-head - who came in the flesh.
2) THE SPIRIT - Third person of the God-head.
3) A VOICE - The Father - First person of the God-head.

Please explain how ONE - non Triune God, could accomplish this?

 

[awelight]

You got the point I was making, you say? Riddle me this, then: How then do you still miss the fact that it was not I that was stooping to lows "that matches their worldly philosophical and humanistic view"?

Pointing out what is a very obvious hole in a given narrative does not require me to "sink down to an argument." It's simply called: Using their own argument, paradigm, and worldviews against them, something Paul himself does in Acts 17:29 where he cites secular philosophers in a context where he had just finished engaging Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18). Do you think Paul cited the OT when he engaged pagan detractors? No. He used their own literature, paradigms, and frameworks against them.

You don't go citing the Bible to an unbeliever, because for one: They already don't agree with it.

What in the world are you taking about? What does Acts 17:29, have to do with "paradigms and worldviews"?
Acts 17:29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.

Acts 17:29, is in the context of Paul describing the one True God and gives to them the Gospel. (Acts 17:24-31) This is exactly what they needed to hear - The Gospel message.

You stated: "You don't go citing the Bible to an unbeliever,,," That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. The Gospel message is the only thing an unbeliever needs to hear.

You don't need to respond to this post. I am so dumb founded right now by your statement, I think I will just withdraw from this conversation.

 

[montana123]

A couple times a month, JW’s come to visit the industrial estate where I work. They’re always welcoming and we always have a healthy debate, but everytime I ask the question why they don’t believe Jesus is God they stop talking and direct me to their website.
I can’t understand how someone who reads the same scriptures that we do, does not believe that Jesus is Lord? Or are they reading different scripture? As they’re trying to convert me, I offer counterpoints to make them think about what they believe. I’m not bashing JW’s. I just can’t fathom how you can read the same book, but come to a different conclusion of who/what God is. Thoughts?

The Bible plainly states that God was manifest in flesh.

The throne in heaven is the throne of God and the Lamb who is God in the glorified body of the man Christ Jesus.

Which God laid down His life for the saints, and purchased the Church with His own blood.

That the Son shall be called the Mighty God.

That the ruler of Israel to come will be from everlasting which is no beginning.

Jesus is the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh.

Jesus said before Abraham was, I am.

The Bible says that Jesus is the only Ruler, and dwells in the light which no person can approach unto, and no person has seen Him and no person will ever see Him because He is an invisible Spirit but showed Israel a visible manifestation.

Jesus is bigger than His bodily image which He is God and man, and when the Bible says God was manifest in the flesh it means He manifest all of His attributes to the man Christ Jesus for He is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him all fulness should dwell.

And the Spirit in Christ is still connected to the omnipresent Spirit of God for He cannot be separated.

Jesus does not have His own Spirit that moves around with Him for there cannot be a double portion of the Spirit in one spot and a spot where the Spirit is not at, but He moves through the Spirit and wherever He is at the Spirit is there making Him which He is an omnipresent Spirit showing a visible image of Himself.

The JW's only use the New World Translation Bible.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
This one was in the beginning with God.

They believe Jesus is a created god.

KJV Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

NIV Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.

KJV and NIV have God but NWT have a god.

So they are taught that Jesus is a created god and John 1:1 to reflect that.

“I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga", says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

Here they apply this scripture to Jehovah.

KJV Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

NIV “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

But the KJV and NIV appear to be talking about Jesus which Revelation is a revealing of Him.

And you, O Bethʹle·hem Ephʹra·thah, The one too little to be among the thousands of Judah, From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel, Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.

Here they refer Jesus from being from the days of long ago.

KJV Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

NIV “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

KJV says from everlasting which is no beginning but NIV says from ancient times which why did they say that His origins are from ancient times for He existed before then which origins does not make sense.

And Jehovah will be King over all the earth. In that day Jehovah will be one, and his name one.

 

[williamjordan]

What in the world are you taking about? What does Acts 17:29, have to do with "paradigms and worldviews"?
Acts 17:29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.

Acts 17:29, is in the context of Paul describing the one True God and gives to them the Gospel. (Acts 17:24-31) This is exactly what they needed to hear - The Gospel message.

You stated: "You don't go citing the Bible to an unbeliever,,," That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. The Gospel message is the only thing an unbeliever needs to hear.

You don't need to respond to this post. I am so dumb founded right now by your statement, I think I will just withdraw from this conversation.

Feel free to withdraw from the conversation, but that will not stop me from responding. When Paul interacted with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, he did so by alluding to (or even, citing) their very own source material. For example, in Acts 17:22, Paul cites an inscription found on an ancient pagan altar(s), “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD,” and uses that to further develop his argument. Again, in Acts 17:28, Paul alludes to a Greco idiom, “in him we live and move and exist,” which is also found in ancient pagan sources, such as Epimenides. And then, just a few short words later, Paul again cites an ancient pagan poet (Aparatus) as saying, “We are his offspring.”

Paul does this sort of thing a lot more frequent than what you think. In Philippians, there is a peculiar phrase that Paul uses in 1:21, “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” This is an idiom also found in ancient Graeco-Roman authors of the period (which his Philippian audience may have been familiar with), such as,

“What gain is life to me? Why didn’t I quickly throw myself from this rugged rock, to strike the ground and from all troubles be freed? For it’s better to die once fore all than every day to suffer terribly.” (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 747-751)

“What gain is life to me now? Oh, oh! In death let me bring to an end my hateful life and leave it behind.” (Euripides, Medea 145-147)

“What gain is life to me? There is no country for me, no home, nor escape from trouble.” (Euripides, Medea 798-799)

“Why then should I live? What gain will we make, possessing a life that’s useless and unholy?” (Euripides, Hercules Furens 1301-1302)

I point this out, because by the time we make it to Phil. 2, we hear more echoes to Euripides, particularly his work entitled, “Bacchae.” In this specific text, Dionysus declares that he had “exchanged his divine form for a mortal one” (Bacchae 4), and goes onto explain that he has “taken on mortal form and changed my appearance to that of a man” (Bacchae 53-54). The allusions here are quite strong between Euripides’ Bacchae and the Carmen Christi, also see Acts 14:11-12. Even further, in 3:19, Paul adds a word of condemnation on false believers in the church. Here, Paul may have alluded to Euripides’ Graeco-Roman playwrite, “Cyclops” (“I sacrifice to no god save myself — and to my belly, greatest of deities”) when he wrote that their “their god is their belly.”

Paul is using sources well known to the geographic region so that his very own message (the gospel) would resonate better with the target audience. It's not that hard to understand why he would do so.

 

[williamjordan]

What in the world are you taking about? What does Acts 17:29, have to do with "paradigms and worldviews"?
Acts 17:29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.

Acts 17:29, is in the context of Paul describing the one True God and gives to them the Gospel. (Acts 17:24-31) This is exactly what they needed to hear - The Gospel message.

You stated: "You don't go citing the Bible to an unbeliever,,," That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. The Gospel message is the only thing an unbeliever needs to hear.

You don't need to respond to this post. I am so dumb founded right now by your statement, I think I will just withdraw from this conversation.

The point is, Paul is "entering" into the mindset of his detractors and using sources local to the region to drive home a point. That does not mean at anytime, that Paul agrees with those sources. Nor does it mean he is "stooping" down.

 

[Burn1986]

A couple times a month, JW’s come to visit the industrial estate where I work. They’re always welcoming and we always have a healthy debate, but everytime I ask the question why they don’t believe Jesus is God they stop talking and direct me to their website.
I can’t understand how someone who reads the same scriptures that we do, does not believe that Jesus is Lord? Or are they reading different scripture? As they’re trying to convert me, I offer counterpoints to make them think about what they believe. I’m not bashing JW’s. I just can’t fathom how you can read the same book, but come to a different conclusion of who/what God is. Thoughts?

“I just can’t fathom how you can read the same book, but come to a different conclusion of who/what God is” - lol, welcome to Christian Chat.

Jehovah’s Witnesseses are tame compared to some of the whackiness on here, especially in the Bible Forum.

 

[Burn1986]

Man, I have to check the dates on these old threads.

 

[RR]

Now you want to play games.... I asked you to explain the record - Not ask another question while you ignore my posted question. Just in case you forgot my question - here it is again:

How is this observation possible?

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
Mat 3:17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

There is only one reasonable explanation for this account -
1) JESUS - Second person of the God-head - who came in the flesh.
2) THE SPIRIT - Third person of the God-head.
3) A VOICE - The Father - First person of the God-head.

Please explain how ONE - non Triune God, could accomplish this?

"Games"? Who me?

Okay, let's consider, that in scriptures, there are various titles and definitions that are applied to the holy Spirit. As these are carefully studied, it becomes evident that ALL of them describe characteristics that stem from God and Christ and do not necessitate an additional personality. Many are also reflected in the life of the Church.

Let's look at some examples.
“The Spirit of God” (Matt. 3:16)
“The Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:11)
“The Spirit of Holiness” (Rom. 1:4)
“The Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17)
“The Spirit of a Sound Mind” (2 Tim. 1:7)
“The Holy Spirit of Promise” (Eph. 1:13)
“The Spirit of Meekness” (Gal. 6:1)
“The Spirit of Wisdom” (Eph. 1:17)
“The Spirit of Counsel” (Isa. 11:2)
“The Spirit of Adoption” (Rom. 8:15)
“The Spirit of Understanding” (Isa. 11:2)
“The Spirit of Glory” (1 Pet. 4:14)
“The Spirit of Grace” (Heb. 10:29)
“The Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev. 19:10)

Even the most avid Trinitarian would find it necessary to define “Spirit” in most usages as an influence or power. The personhood of the Trinity just doesn't fit into these descriptions. So Trinitarians must use two definitions when referring to “Spirit” in the Bible: one meaning the Third Person of the Trinity and the other as an influence or power. Unless the meaning is continually defined in each verse, the reader is left uncertain as to what is meant. There is another side to this matter which is very revealing. There is also an “unholy spirit” that is referred to frequently in the Scriptures. This spirit is described in opposite terms to that of the holy Spirit.

Note the following:
“The Spirit of Fear” (2 Tim. 1:7)
“The Spirit of Bondage” (Rom. 8:15)
“The Spirit of Divination” (Acts 16:16)
“The Spirit of Antichrist” (1 John 4:3)
“The Spirit of the World” (1 Cor. 2:12)
“The Spirit of Slumber” (Rom. 11:8)
“The Spirit of Error” (1 John 4:6)

Would you or anyone propose to add personhood to these spirits or to suppose that these various designations, unitedly considered, prove there is another evil being apart from Satan, the adversary of God? Not likely, because it's commonly recognized that these terms, which generally signify the wrong spirit, all have their chief exemplification in Satan. A separate personality is not required, nor are a host of personal spirits needed to justify the listings.

Therefore, I submit that for consistency a similar conclusion should be drawn in regard to the various references to the holy Spirit as well.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

Please explain how ONE - non Triune God, could accomplish this?

From the information given by Ezek 1:1-28, I tend to think that maybe God is a
composite unity consisting of four dimensions instead of three; and yet according to
John 4:24 the supreme being is invisible, and according to John 5:37 the supreme
being is silent; so I have to assume that everyone and everything we know of as God,
including the voice heard in Adam's garden, the voice heard by Moses from within the
burning bush, and the voice heard by Jesus during his baptism, were theophanies
instead of the supreme being's actual self in person.

You know: arguing over God's characteristics is sort of like a group of blind men arguing
over the shape of an elephant judging by the part of its body each man happens to be
touching. I rather suspect that when all is said and done, both sides of the aisle are
going to be astonished to discover that the supreme being has been active in our
world in more forms than any among us thought possible.
_

 

[awelight]

"Games"? Who me?

Okay, let's consider, that in scriptures, there are various titles and definitions that are applied to the holy Spirit. As these are carefully studied, it becomes evident that ALL of them describe characteristics that stem from God and Christ and do not necessitate an additional personality. Many are also reflected in the life of the Church.

Let's look at some examples.
“The Spirit of God” (Matt. 3:16)
“The Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:11)
“The Spirit of Holiness” (Rom. 1:4)
“The Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17)
“The Spirit of a Sound Mind” (2 Tim. 1:7)
“The Holy Spirit of Promise” (Eph. 1:13)
“The Spirit of Meekness” (Gal. 6:1)
“The Spirit of Wisdom” (Eph. 1:17)
“The Spirit of Counsel” (Isa. 11:2)
“The Spirit of Adoption” (Rom. 8:15)
“The Spirit of Understanding” (Isa. 11:2)
“The Spirit of Glory” (1 Pet. 4:14)
“The Spirit of Grace” (Heb. 10:29)
“The Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev. 19:10)

Even the most avid Trinitarian would find it necessary to define “Spirit” in most usages as an influence or power. The personhood of the Trinity just doesn't fit into these descriptions. So Trinitarians must use two definitions when referring to “Spirit” in the Bible: one meaning the Third Person of the Trinity and the other as an influence or power. Unless the meaning is continually defined in each verse, the reader is left uncertain as to what is meant. There is another side to this matter which is very revealing. There is also an “unholy spirit” that is referred to frequently in the Scriptures. This spirit is described in opposite terms to that of the holy Spirit.

Note the following:
“The Spirit of Fear” (2 Tim. 1:7)
“The Spirit of Bondage” (Rom. 8:15)
“The Spirit of Divination” (Acts 16:16)
“The Spirit of Antichrist” (1 John 4:3)
“The Spirit of the World” (1 Cor. 2:12)
“The Spirit of Slumber” (Rom. 11:8)
“The Spirit of Error” (1 John 4:6)

Would you or anyone propose to add personhood to these spirits or to suppose that these various designations, unitedly considered, prove there is another evil being apart from Satan, the adversary of God? Not likely, because it's commonly recognized that these terms, which generally signify the wrong spirit, all have their chief exemplification in Satan. A separate personality is not required, nor are a host of personal spirits needed to justify the listings.

Therefore, I submit that for consistency a similar conclusion should be drawn in regard to the various references to the holy Spirit as well.

You refused to explain the Text. Therefore I will have to assume you have no answer.

All that you posted, while interesting points of study, are mere smoke and mirrors, as it relates to the direct question presented to you.

 

[awelight]

Feel free to withdraw from the conversation, but that will not stop me from responding. When Paul interacted with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, he did so by alluding to (or even, citing) their very own source material. For example, in Acts 17:22, Paul cites an inscription found on an ancient pagan altar(s), “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD,” and uses that to further develop his argument. Again, in Acts 17:28, Paul alludes to a Greco idiom, “in him we live and move and exist,” which is also found in ancient pagan sources, such as Epimenides. And then, just a few short words later, Paul again cites an ancient pagan poet (Aparatus) as saying, “We are his offspring.”

Paul does this sort of thing a lot more frequent than what you think. In Philippians, there is a peculiar phrase that Paul uses in 1:21, “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” This is an idiom also found in ancient Graeco-Roman authors of the period (which his Philippian audience may have been familiar with), such as,

“What gain is life to me? Why didn’t I quickly throw myself from this rugged rock, to strike the ground and from all troubles be freed? For it’s better to die once fore all than every day to suffer terribly.” (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 747-751)

“What gain is life to me now? Oh, oh! In death let me bring to an end my hateful life and leave it behind.” (Euripides, Medea 145-147)

“What gain is life to me? There is no country for me, no home, nor escape from trouble.” (Euripides, Medea 798-799)

“Why then should I live? What gain will we make, possessing a life that’s useless and unholy?” (Euripides, Hercules Furens 1301-1302)

I point this out, because by the time we make it to Phil. 2, we hear more echoes to Euripides, particularly his work entitled, “Bacchae.” In this specific text, Dionysus declares that he had “exchanged his divine form for a mortal one” (Bacchae 4), and goes onto explain that he has “taken on mortal form and changed my appearance to that of a man” (Bacchae 53-54). The allusions here are quite strong between Euripides’ Bacchae and the Carmen Christi, also see Acts 14:11-12. Even further, in 3:19, Paul adds a word of condemnation on false believers in the church. Here, Paul may have alluded to Euripides’ Graeco-Roman playwrite, “Cyclops” (“I sacrifice to no god save myself — and to my belly, greatest of deities”) when he wrote that their “their god is their belly.”

Paul is using sources well known to the geographic region so that his very own message (the gospel) would resonate better with the target audience. It's not that hard to understand why he would do so.

Again, WOW dude. Why do you even bother with the Bible. It obviously is a mere intellectual exercise with you. This whole post shows you place philosophy and humanism on a par with what God said through inspired writers.

In most of these cases, you are quoting from individuals who spoke or wrote after the Apostle Paul had already written these letters. Therefore, which came first - the horse or the cart.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Let's look at some examples.
“The Spirit of God” (Matt. 3:16)

1. “The Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:11)
2. “The Spirit of Holiness” (Rom. 1:4)
3. “The Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17)
4. “The Spirit of a Sound Mind” (2 Tim. 1:7)
5. “The Holy Spirit of Promise” (Eph. 1:13)
6. “The Spirit of Meekness” (Gal. 6:1)
7. “The Spirit of Wisdom” (Eph. 1:17)
8. “The Spirit of Counsel” (Isa. 11:2)
9. “The Spirit of Adoption” (Rom. 8:15)
10. “The Spirit of Understanding” (Isa. 11:2)
11. “The Spirit of Glory” (1 Pet. 4:14)
12. “The Spirit of Grace” (Heb. 10:29)
13. “The Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev. 19:10)

1. So that is thirteen places where He is not called "the Holy Ghost" or "the Holy Spirit".

But there are FIFTY PLACES where He is called "the Holy Ghost" (a divine Person). And there are SEVEN PLACES where He is called "the Holy Spirit" (no different).

But you ignored all those Scriptures to avoid the truth. The Greek word pneuma means "spirit", so all fifty seven verses could have said "Holy Spirit". For some reason known only to them the KJB translators followed Martin Luther's "Heilige Geist" and translated it as "Holy Ghost". He is definitely shown to be God in all these Scriptures, and only a willfully blind person will ignore that.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● Acts 7:52-53 . .Which of the prophets have not your ancestors
persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of
the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers:
who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Well; I've read, and I've re-read, the giving of the law to Moses in the Old
Testament and have thus far myself not been able to detect the participation
of celestial creatures anywhere in that event.

● Gen 48:15-16 . . And he blessed Joseph, and said: God, before whom my
fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long
unto this day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil; bless the lads

Jacob experienced some contact with celestial creatures (Gen 32:2-3) but
none of them can be referred to as "the" angel because that particular
distinction belongs to the divine being whom Jacob first encountered in
dreams (Gen 28:10-15, Gen 31:10-13) in visitations (Gen 35:9-13) and with
whom Jacob later had a close encounter of a third kind. (Gen 32:24-30)

I'm not trying to shoehorn Jesus into the Old Testament; my intent is to
show that the supreme being has a history of interacting with the human
world by means of a variety of forms and apparitions including but not
limited to: smoke, fire, thunder, trumpets, brilliant lights, clouds, voices,
wind, earthquakes, and men. So when we run across the "angel of the Lord"
in our reading of the Old Testament, it would be a good idea to stifle the
impulse to assume the Bible is always talking about a celestial creature.
_

 

[RR]

You refused to explain the Text. Therefore I will have to assume you have no answer.

All that you posted, while interesting points of study, are mere smoke and mirrors, as it relates to the direct question presented to you.

What's to explain. Jesus said to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit. It is debated whether this verse is spurious, because none of the baptisms in scripture followed that formula, thus they were all baptized in the name of Jesus. No as to your "proof" verse at Matthew 3:16, 17:

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."​

​

Where do YOU see the Trinity here. If believers are to be baptized in the name of a triune God, what triune God was Jesus baptized under? You can't count him in the mix, as he's the one getting baptized. At best you have two, the Spirit of God and the voice out of heaven.

 

[Chaps]

What's to explain. Jesus said to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit. It is debated whether this verse is spurious, because none of the baptisms in scripture followed that formula, thus they were all baptized in the name of Jesus. No as to your "proof" verse at Matthew 3:16, 17:

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."​

​

Where do YOU see the Trinity here. If believers are to be baptized in the name of a triune God, what triune God was Jesus baptized under? You can't count him in the mix, as he's the one getting baptized. At best you have two, the Spirit of God and the voice out of heaven.

Nothing about the end of Matthew is “spurious.” There is no textual criticism that suggests it is an interpolation. The point here is there is one “name” that consists of the Father, Son and Spirit.

The baptizing in the name of Jesus does not contradict this command. Especially since many of the baptisms described in Acts were for Jews who already believed in the Father and Spirit. The emphasis on the name of Jesus shows that they were putting their hope in Jesus as their Messiah and Savior.

Jesus was baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. First, he didn’t need to be baptized in his own name because he had no sin to be cleansed of. Second, he had not yet raised from the dead so “Christian” baptism didn’t exist at the time of his baptism. I mean, it’s not like he could be baptized into his own death and resurrection which hadn’t happened yet. So, the baptism Jesus underwent wasn’t about establishing a formula for later Christian baptism.

 

[RR]

Nothing about the end of Matthew is “spurious.” There is no textual criticism that suggests it is an interpolation. The point here is there is one “name” that consists of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Perhaps you should do some research on the verse.

 

[Chaps]

Perhaps you should do some research on the verse.

Well I have my Greek New Testament 4th Edition right here. Looking at the textual criticism and alternate readings, I dont see anything reflected here on Matthew 28:19.

There are no brackets or indications in this verse that there is any questions about whether or not the text is regarded as certain or that there are any variants. In fact, every single translation I have ever seen (except the New World Translation) translates the verse this way.