Arrr! Assuming Trinitarianism.

[GuardianShua]

The oldest textual evidence of Matthew 28:19 from the 2nd Century AD says: "baptise in my name." No Trinitarian formula is given like in the 4th century text of Matthew 28:19.

 

[cupid dave]

The oldest textual evidence of Matthew 28:19 from the 2nd Century AD says: "baptise in my name." No Trinitarian formula is given like in the 4th century text of Matthew 28:19.

source...?

 

[cupid dave]

Why in your "triune god" is the father person called "father" and the son person called "son"? If I would have a twin I surely wouldn't call him "son" nor would he call me "father."

Because...

Truth IS the image of Reality.
Truth IS the "son" of the ever unfolding Reality which sires The Truth that corresponds to Reality.

 

[cupid dave]

Reference: NumbersUrk. 33 Doc. 28 CPG 2041
Incipit: Τοὺς πονηροὺς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς
Date: 333
Ancient source used: Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition 39
Modern edition used: H-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, vol. 2.1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1940).
Other ancient Greek sources: Socrates, Church History 1.9.30 and Gelasius, Church History 2.36.1
Ancient Syriac sources: 2 manuscripts: Brit. Mus. Add. 14,528 and Vatican Borg. Syr. 82
Modern edition of Syriac: Fredrich Schulthess, “Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon.” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse N.F. 10, no. 2 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1908) pp. 1-2



And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment.

And in another hand:

God will watch over you, beloved brothers.

Prophecy fulfilled!!!!




[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Stigmata [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Zech. 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened, (the New Testament), to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Zech. 13:2 And it shall come to pass in that day, (325 A D), saith the LORD, (Christ) of (Christian) hosts (today, 1.44 billion in number), that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and (mythologically based Pagan anthropomorphism) shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit (of Libidinal sexual excesses: [Rev 20:1-3]) to pass out of the land.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Zech. 13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD, (Jesus Christ): and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Zech. 13:4 And it shall come to pass in that day, (throughout the whole of the thousand years of the Dark Age of the Church), that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Zech. 13:5 But he shall say (to the Catholic priests), I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Zech. 13:6 And one (of the Inquisitioners) shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands, (Stigmata)? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. [/FONT]

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

The oldest textual evidence of Matthew 28:19 from the 2nd Century AD says: "baptise in my name." No Trinitarian formula is given like in the 4th century text of Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 3, 4, and 28. - Part 8 - YouTube scroll to 3:20 lenght of the video where I address this Matthew 28:19 and "baptize in my name" issue.

 

[Albion]

The oldest textual evidence of Matthew 28:19 from the 2nd Century AD says: "baptise in my name."

That's an authorization to do it, not a word for word formula for what to say.

 

[Albion]

1) It's only an "inescapable conclusion" to those who A) Don't research the textual criticism B) don't comprehend the actual context C) lack Bible knowledge as a whole D) lack knowledge of Hebrew and Greek E) accept illogical as logical.

If you could have debunked the Bible truths I listed, I'm sure you would have done so instead of repeating mistakes already posted.

 

[Albion]

Why in your "triune god" is the father person called "father" and the son person called "son"? If I would have a twin I surely wouldn't call him "son" nor would he call me "father."

Are analogies or poetic language too hard for you?

 

[GuardianShua]

source...?

In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are GONE which contained the end of Matthew 28. (F.C. Conybeare).

Read this link: Constantine Wrote Matt 28:19

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

If you could have debunked the Bible truths I listed, I'm sure you would have done so instead of repeating mistakes already posted.

You didn't prodive "the Bible truths." All you did was make some opinions based on your interpretation of the Bible. For that matter, you didn't even quote any passages for us to read. I don't know how you manage to live on Mars, but please come down to Earth and deal with the actual facts.

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

Are analogies or poetic language too hard for you?

I like to break things down to show how stupid the doctrine of the trinity really is.

 

[RadicalDissenter]

There is no necessity to read what is now known as Trinitarianism in the formula in Matthew 28:19.

Why ? Not every trinity is the Trinity of "orthodox" Christendom (the Athanaisan party). There is an Arian trinity (or more correctly "Arian triads"), too, with a strict hierarchy, in which God is just one of these three, the Son is called "god" in a secondary sense, and the Spirit is not a divine being at all. And some Arians had no problems with using three names in their baptismal formula, conceiving the three as being of different substances and different levels of authority. There is no hint of "one substance in three persons" here or anywhere in the Bible.

Someone could have changed Matthew 28:19 intentionally, but this text cannot prove the Trinity doctrine at all, even if one accepts it as authentic beyond any doubt.

 

[2ducklow]

There is no necessity to read what is now known as Trinitarianism in the formula in Matthew 28:19.

Why ? Not every trinity is the Trinity of "orthodox" Christendom (the Athanaisan party). There is an Arian trinity (or more correctly "Arian triads"), too, with a strict hierarchy, in which God is just one of these three, the Son is called "god" in a secondary sense, and the Spirit is not a divine being at all. And some Arians had no problems with using three names in their baptismal formula, conceiving the three as being of different substances and different levels of authority. There is no hint of "one substance in three persons" here or anywhere in the Bible.

Someone could have changed Matthew 28:19 intentionally, but this text cannot prove the Trinity doctrine at all, even if one accepts it as authentic beyond any doubt.

True, but to trinitarians it is undeniable proof. Logically speaking you are right, simply saying 'in the name of the father son and Holy Ghost" doesn't prove they are a trinity, except to the trinitarian way of thinking in which any mention of 3 is a trinity, if the 3 are each considered God. That's their illogic, that is logic to them. Because trinitarians can say anything no matter how illogical, and justify it with, "God is beyond our understanding".

Personaly, I think it all stems from desperation, a desperation born out of thier belief that a belief in the trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation.

 

[Albion]

You didn't prodive "the Bible truths."

I'll try to remember to prodive them next time.

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

I'll try to remember to prodive them next time.

You do that, and I'll make sure to expose it as nothing but ignorance and eisogesis of the Text.

 

[cupid dave]

I like to break things down to show how stupid the doctrine of the trinity really is.

..."and My own new name (Trinity???)"...



If we are all so stupid what is your belated guess for His new nmae if Trinity has been wrong for 2000 years????






Revelation 3:12

Amplified Bible (AMP)

12He who overcomes (is victorious), I will make him a pillar in the sanctuary of My God; he shall never be put out of it or go out of it, and I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which descends from My God out of heaven, and My own new name (Trinity???).

 

[2ducklow]

..."and My own new name (Trinity???)"...



If we are all so stupid what is your belated guess for His new nmae if Trinity has been wrong for 2000 years????






Revelation 3:12

Amplified Bible (AMP)

12He who overcomes (is victorious), I will make him a pillar in the sanctuary of My God; he shall never be put out of it or go out of it, and I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which descends from My God out of heaven, and My own new name (Trinity???).

Trinity isn't a name.
the new name has something to do with this verse.
Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.


Both verses speak of those who overcome receiving a new name, Jesus overcame the world, we who believe in Jesus overcome the world. so the meaing of both verses is similar.

I know of no verses speaking of trinity being a name or a new name. so there is no scripture saying trinity to interpret either verse with.I feel each verse gives insight to the meaning of the other, scripture interprets scripture is the best way, the worst way is church councils interpret scripture.;

 

[cupid dave]

Trinity isn't a name.
the new name has something to do with this verse.
Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.


Both verses speak of those who overcome receiving a new name, Jesus overcame the world, we who believe in Jesus overcome the world. so the meaing of both verses is similar.

I know of no verses speaking of trinity being a name or a new name. so there is no scripture saying trinity to interpret either verse with.I feel each verse gives insight to the meaning of the other, scripture interprets scripture is the best way, the worst way is church councils interpret scripture.;

You are right in that the actual name was "God," but the reasoning that supported this new name for Jesus became the symbolic expression Trinity.

And perhaps it is also true that we will all get a new name, like saint or such.

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

I've started a debate with two Trinitarians. Here's my Opening Statement:

Does the Bible teach Jesus is Almighty God? - My Opening Statement - YouTube

 

[Albion]

You do that, and I'll make sure to expose it as nothing but ignorance and eisogesis of the Text.

I'm laughing so hard, I really don't think any reply to that gem would do.