bible verses changed to support trinity

[LetsBeLogical]

Actually I think one needs to read past verse 8 in Hebrews 1. Lets do that shall we?

Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

God calls himself the God of Jesus. This can be seen by "God, even thy God" or literally translated "God, the God of you". Even though Jesus is a god he still has a god above him. This also seen in Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.

LetsBeLogical

 

[LetsBeLogical]

I had to respond to these statements

The entire NT asserts the deity of Jesus; and the entire Bible asserts the singleness of ONE GOD ---- see especially Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5. "There IS NO GOD besides ME." Period.

What is the context of why God said there is no God besides himself? Was it not in reference to idol gods? Also why is Moses called god and also the angels called gods by God himself? Infact Jehovah is called the God of gods in Daniel 11:36.

Jesus, though BORN, had no beginning (Heb6:19-7:4). In Rev1 JEHOVAH is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end", in Rev22 JESUS is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end".

Although I completely disagree that Jesus is ever called Alpha and Omega would it still mean he was equal to the father if he were? Does same title denote same authority or same type of being?

God calls Jesus "GOD" in Heb1; yet there is ONLY ONE GOD.

I answered this in a post above.

Col2:9, Philip2:5-11 (understand that verse 7 really says "thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD") --- assert Jesus = God.

Im glad you brought up up these verses. I wonder if you actually have read verses 9-11 of Phil 2. I will paste them

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

In verse 9 who highly exalted Jesus and who gave him a name above every name? What does it mean that every knee should bow and tongues should confess the Christ is Lord? Is it not to the "glory" of God the father?

I will comment later on verse 6 as even most trinitarians I know wont even use this verse for obvious reasons I will bring up later

Jesus identifies Himself with Jehovah in Jn14:9ff ("He who has SEEN ME, has SEEN the Father!"

Ok? Does that mean Jesus is the Father or even the same God? Lets see why Jesus said this.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel

So since Jesus does what the father taught him then by seeing him you have seen the father. That is also why Jesus is called the "image of the invisible god".

LetsBeLogical

 

[jessedance]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says : " Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

I said earlier;

”the entire quote above is a pack of lies. It does not exist in the source cited.”......

I stand by my earlier statement, in this regard. The quote was not from the ISBE article on Baptism, as your post states, but as you have shown from the ISBE article on Sacraments. I wonder why lightbearer.org cited the wrong article?​

The quote is exactly where the author said it was, ' Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism'. If you turn to vol. 4, page 2637 the quote is directly under baptism which is in bold in the printed version, he wasn't refering to the internet site but rather to that page in vol. 4 and where to find it exactly on that page which was directly under baptism.
​

 

[Starcrystal]

Der Alter,
As I said in the other post, Justin [a.d. 110-165], about 100 years before Tertullian, did not use the word Trinity but in his, (Link to: Dialogue with Trypho), Justin, wrote;

The Word is Not an Inanimate Power
The Word is a Person.
The Word is Begotten of the Father's Substance.
He (Jesus) was God,
He (Jesus) was Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.
He (Jesus) was God, indivisible from the Father.
He (Jesus) was God, inseparable from the Father.
(Jesus) was Begotten from the Father but not by abscission.[cutting off]

Justin wrote, Jesus was God, “indivisible”, not capable of being divided, from the Father. Jesus was God, “inseparable”, not capable of being separated, from the Father. The Word, Jesus, God, The Son of God, is Begotten of the Father's Substance but is not divided from the Father, is not separated from the Father, and is not cut off from the Father.

Chapter CXXVIII.-The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as a Person Begotten of the Father's Substance.

Chapter XXXVI.-He Proves that Christ is Called Lord of Hosts.

What you have quoted here sounds more like it supports what I've been saying all along! Of course the Word is a person, because the Word was made FLESH and dwelt among us. I think the problem lies in that you see separate manifestations, such as at Jesus baptism, so you coin the word "persons." God was in Chist, the Holy Spirit was in Christ and without measure: meaning he had the fulness of the Spirit.

Because the voice of the Father spoke from heaven separately from Jesus, one assumes they are not one but three persons. Yet you'll turn right around and say God is one! You're not considering the physics of the thing! God is GOD. He can manifest separately and simultaneously as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He can even carry on dialogue between the 3. But they are ONE. You're looking at it in the physical, but these things are SPIRITUALLY discerned! In the spirit realm of God, one can be 3, and be inseparable ONE on one level, and appear to be separate on another level, because HE IS GOD, and is ALL POWERFUL!

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Starcrystal

The problem is that if they are the same God then one cant be the god of the other.

 

[Starcrystal]

LetsBeLogical,

Starcrystal

The problem is that if they are the same God then one cant be the god of the other.

I don't think I quite understand your statement here
They are ONE and work together. None is "god" of the other. Now THAT would be some kind of heresy.
In one place it says the Father has committed all judgement to the Son, in another it says the Son judges no man, but the Father judges. When Christ returns, He judges. It sounds confusing, but its interactive. Father & Son being one, they judge as One. We must also remember Jesus was in human form when he said some of these things. Even trinitariansd beleive the 3 "persons" are equal... so how can one be "god" of the other? I beleive Jesus said "My Father is greater than I" simply because he was in human form at the time and slightly limited by his fleshly abode. He was in the flesh to carry out the mission of redemption. After his resurrection & ascention, he assumed power equal as one with God. Does this really "limit" Jesus deity? NO! Just consider his humanity and the fact he lived in the physical flesh for 33 years.

 

[blessedbe]

What you have quoted here sounds more like it supports what I've been saying all along! Of course the Word is a person, because the Word was made FLESH and dwelt among us. I think the problem lies in that you see separate manifestations, such as at Jesus baptism, so you coin the word "persons." God was in Chist, the Holy Spirit was in Christ and without measure: meaning he had the fulness of the Spirit.

Because the voice of the Father spoke from heaven separately from Jesus, one assumes they are not one but three persons. Yet you'll turn right around and say God is one! You're not considering the physics of the thing! God is GOD. He can manifest separately and simultaneously as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He can even carry on dialogue between the 3. But they are ONE. You're looking at it in the physical, but these things are SPIRITUALLY discerned! In the spirit realm of God, one can be 3, and be inseparable ONE on one level, and appear to be separate on another level, because HE IS GOD, and is ALL POWERFUL!

AMEN starcrystal!!! blessings to you!

 

[Starcrystal]

Hi Blessedbe. Thanks!

AND THE LORD SHALL BE KING OVER ALL THE EARTH: IN THAT DAY SHALL THERE BE ONE LORD, AND HIS NAME ONE. ~ Zechariah 14:9

Compare Matthew 25:31 - 34. Who is the King? The Son of Man in all his glory!

Romans 8:9 - 11 ~ The Spirit of God/The Spirit of Christ = interchangeable, for they are one in the same.

Revelation 19:12, 13 & 16 He has a name which only he knows. The name scripture tells us is that this is the Word of God. We know this is Jesus. He has a name written KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Now, going back to Zechariah 14, we see the LORD is King. Lord is translated from YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) Its not Elohim, which denotes a plurality.
So Yahweh, the Most High God is King over all the earth. Jesus, the Son of Man is King who judges the nations (all the earth) He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
According to these passages, Jesus is Yahweh: God, and is King, and His name is One.

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Starcrystal

Thanks for the reply

I don't think I quite understand your statement here
They are ONE and work together. None is "god" of the other. Now THAT would be some kind of heresy.

Sure one is the god of the other. On another post I provided many scriptures that show that Jesus does have a god. You are correct though. They are one, but this is in unity not being.

In one place it says the Father has committed all judgement to the Son, in another it says the Son judges no man, but the Father judges. When Christ returns, He judges. It sounds confusing, but its interactive. Father & Son being one, they judge as One. We must also remember Jesus was in human form when he said some of these things. Even trinitariansd beleive the 3 "persons" are equal... so how can one be "god" of the other?

Actually in 1 Corinthians it says that others will also judge.
1 Cor 2:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
As I stated in my first comment there are many verses that show that Jesus has a god. In fact in Revelation Jesus says it 4 times in one verse
Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

I beleive Jesus said "My Father is greater than I" simply because he was in human form at the time and slightly limited by his fleshly abode.

Either he was God or he wasnt yes? If he was fully God and fully Man at the same time then there is no limitation

He was in the flesh to carry out the mission of redemption. After his resurrection & ascention, he assumed power equal as one with God. Does this really "limit" Jesus deity? NO! Just consider his humanity and the fact he lived in the physical flesh for 33 years.

Of course his "deity" has limits. Again I state that Jesus was "given" all authority and in the end he will give this authority back to the one that gave it to him.
1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
So Jesus is subjected to the one that put all things under him. Who put all things under Jesus? Who gave Jesus his authority? Who made Jesus Lord and Christ?
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
God made Jesus our lord and christ.

LetsBeLogical

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Starycrystal

I know this wasnt addressed to me but I thought I would comment on it anyways.

AND THE LORD SHALL BE KING OVER ALL THE EARTH: IN THAT DAY SHALL THERE BE ONE LORD, AND HIS NAME ONE. ~ Zechariah 14:9

Compare Matthew 25:31 - 34. Who is the King? The Son of Man in all his glory!

So are you assuming that because both are called King that they are the same or equal?

Romans 8:9 - 11 ~ The Spirit of God/The Spirit of Christ = interchangeable, for they are one in the same.

This is called Modalism and I dont know to many Trinitarians that hold to that.

Revelation 19:12, 13 & 16 He has a name which only he knows. The name scripture tells us is that this is the Word of God. We know this is Jesus. He has a name written KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Now, going back to Zechariah 14, we see the LORD is King. Lord is translated from YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) Its not Elohim, which denotes a plurality.

Again are you assuming that the title "king" means they are the same? Was not also Artexeres and Nebuchadnezzar called "king of kings". Sure they were and yet I dont think that either are even remotely equal to Jesus or Jehovah (YHWH),

So Yahweh, the Most High God is King over all the earth. Jesus, the Son of Man is King who judges the nations (all the earth) He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
According to these passages, Jesus is Yahweh: God, and is King, and His name is One

The scriptures you quoted make no such claim that Jesus is Jehovah. As I showed in my previous post to you others will be judges also and in this post others are called kings. Let me ask you this. If one gives up his authority is he a king anymore?

LetsBeLogical

 

[Der Alte]

harnack, the author of the article ,believes mark 16:9-20 to be spurious, I don't. He also believes matthew 28:19 to be spurious , to which i concur.

Still picking and choosing bit and pieces of which writings are correct or false based on nothing but your own presuppositions.

I know the baises of the belief that mark;16,9-20 is spurious but i also know why those same manuscripts have proof that their ommision was in one deliberate and the other a blank page was left , and it is the only blank page in the entire manuscript suggesting that the copiest was unsure of whether vs. 9-20 were authentic or not. i forget which manuscripts they are A and ALEPH or B probably.

Amazing you know more than all the Bible scholars. You know for a fact that parts of Mark were deliberately left or taken out and you can even read the minds of the scribes as to why they wrote or didn’t write what they did. Where did you get this remarkable ability?

also, you claim that eusebius was an arian. I find no evidence to this fact. except that he wrote some letters in support of retaining arias in his office prior to the council of nicea, which other non arian church leaders did also. eusebius sat right next to the emporer constantine, and i beleive presided over the meeting.

As I have said repeatedly you are not searching for the truth. You are just digging through garbage heaps of anti-Trinitarian writings for anything, written by anybody, anywhere, which trashes the Trinity. I have shown over and over again, every quote, that I could verify, that you copied and pasted from lighthouse and lightbearer websites, were either out and out lies, misquoted, or deliberately quoted out-of-context.

I have said a number of times, in this thread and other threads that Eusebius was an Arian, which would explain why he omitted the triadic baptism formula from Mt 28:19. If you were sincerely searching for the truth you could have found it in less that 5 minutes here or on the ‘net.

You have quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), actually second hand manipulated quotes from a website, a number of times, in support of your argument. Here is a quote from the CE about Eusebius. And just FYI Constantine was also an Arian. After he moved his capital to Constaninople, the Eastern part of the kingdom was Arian for 40 years after his death. Feel free to do some actual research in the primary sources, vice 2d and 3d hand quotes from rabid anti-Trinitarian sites, to verify that Constantine was a Arian. I have posted proof for both, in this forum before.

Eusebius of Cæsarea
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, the "Father of Church History"; b. about 260; d. before 341.

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, excommunicate Arius about the year 320. The Arians soon found that for all practical purposes Eusebius was on their side. He wrote to Alexander charging him with misrepresenting the teaching of the Arians and so giving them cause "to attack and misrepresent whatever they please" (see below). A portion of this letter has been preserved in the Acts of the second Council of Nicæa, where it was cited to prove that Eusebius was a heretic. He also took part in a synod of Syrian bishops who decided that Arius should be restored to his former position, but on his side he was to obey his bishop and continually entreat peace and communion with him (Soz., H. E., I, 15).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm
​

In an earlier post we discussed Matthew and the missing ending. Here are a few more reasons which can account for the end of Matthew being missing. In those days the scriptures were written on long scrolls. The scribes would begin at the left end of a scroll, rolling it up as they wrote, so they wouldn’t have several feet of a scroll to hassle with as they repositioned the scroll, to the left, to write the succeeding chapters. When they completed a scroll it would be rolled up with the last chapter on the outside. The portion of the scroll on the outside was more susceptible to damage, of all sorts, fire, water, tearing, natural wear and tear.

Another reasonable explanation. If a scribe reached the end of a scroll without finishing the writing, he would stop there until he could obtain more scrolls. If a scribe were interrupted during his writing, a natural calamity, fire, Roman soldiers attacking, etc. The early parts of a particular scroll would be written down but later parts not. So for the latter part of a scroll to be missing does not prove that it was deliberately removed, or as you like to say, “torn out”.

And I note that you have totally ignored where I have proved several of your previous quotes to be false in one way or another. Many of them are quoted out-of-context, a piece of a sentence here and a piece there, omitting contextual material which does not support your presuppositions. In two of the quotes you posted you actually quoted half a sentence.

This reminds me of a Johnny Hart BC cartoon. One character say to another, “The Bible says there is not God.” The other character asks, “Where?” “Psalm 14 [and 53].” The second character flips through the scripture and says, “No it doesn’t. It says ‘The fool has said in his heart, there is not god.’” That is exactly what your posts do. Twist the sources trying desperately to make them support you presuppositions. It shows a lack of integrity, and is dishonest and deceitful.

1. Eusebius quoting matthew 28:19 many times without the triatic formula and usually this way, 'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’ a few times he abridged the scritpure and left out the latter part. we all do that.

What is your point, if we all do that? And if you had actually read Eusebius, he cites the first part of the verse three different ways, and he was an Arian.

2."The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on ‘the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism’". From Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352.

Who? I have never heard of this work, and since it is anonymous, and not listed among the early church fathers, what value is it?

3."In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out." – Conybeare

More garbage, more dishonesty, more deliberately false statements. I have proved it over and over again. You are not interested in the truth. Here is a quote from Origen, I found it in the second book I searched, De Principiis, Book I

In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given by the imposition of the apostles' hands in baptism.61 From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-45.htm#P6244_1101010​

​

4."In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows:

‘And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’"- Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare

Here is a link to all of Clement’s known writings, neither that title nor the statement appears in any of his works.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/TOC.htm

5.Justin Martyr

"Justin...quotes a saying of Christ...as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19." - Ency. of Religion and Ethics

Another blind cut and paste, anything, written by anybody, as long as it trashes the Trinity, then it must be right. Unfortunate that neither you nor your sources is interested in the truth. Here is a quote from, and a link to, Justin’s First Apology, showing that Justin was familiar with the Triadic formula, and Isaiah is not mentioned in the chapter where this occurs.

The First Apology of Justin

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967
​

​

"In Justin Martyr, who wrote between a.d. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin’s dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258:

‘God hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.’

More quotes and more garbage. Keep it up JD, I don’t mind showing the blatant dishonesty and deception that anti-Trinitarians have to resort to, to try to prove their false teachings.

First, see my previous response showing that Justin did know the Triadic formula and below the quote, immediately above, in context. Justin is not referring to Matt 28:19 but the giving of spiritual gifts to believers in Christ. And once again words have been changed and the middle of the sentence left out.

Therefore, just as God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ. For one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325
​

I previously posted.

Although my sources referred to other sources, which you did not bother to investigate​

I don't have access to them and couldn't find them on the internet. I'm not a scholar. and don't have a vast library at my disposal, nor the funds to aquire one, I probably don't even have the ability to become a scholar,

No body is suggesting you buy the books. Have you ever heard of a library? There are public libraries and colleges and universities, particularly Theology schools, have books of Theology and church history, that anyone can read. If you are not going to make the slightest effort to verify what I post, at least have the integrity to not blow it off as “no evidence,” as you did, and then have the effrontery to copy paste quotes which did the same thing, paraphrase the conclusions of scholars and refer to the original work.

 

[Starcrystal]

LetsBeLogical,
This is called Modalism and I dont know to many Trinitarians that hold to that.

As I have stated numerous times I AM NOT A MODALIST!

Modalist beleive Father, Son & Holy Spirit exist in 3 CONSECUTIVE "modes" and do not manifest simultaneously. I DO NOT beleive this. I beleive they do exist simultaneously, yet are One.
Scripture claims Jesus, the Son was in the beginning and by Him were the worlds made. Jesus himself made the claim "Before Abraham was, I am." He wasn't asserting the "I AM" but rather stating he existed prior to Abraham. He said "I am" rather than "I was," because of the eternal ramifications of being without begining or ending.
And, as I've stated, at Jesus baptism, the Father, Son & Holy Spirit manifest at the same time. So I do not beleive as Modalists do.
On another thread someone coined the term "One-itarian" in regards to a certain preacher. I responded that maybe this is what I would be, (although I don't like labels.)
because I beleive God is One, manifest in 3 individual ways, but I draw the line at "3 persons." because the Holy Spirit is a SPIRIT, and in Jesus (One person) dwells the fulness of the godhead bodily.

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Starcrystal

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to see you are not a Modalist. However, I will humbly await your reply to the rest of the post that I made to you.

LetsBeLogical

 

[jessedance]

der alter;

Mark 16:9-20 is not in the two oldest substantially complete greek MSS (manuscripts) in our possession, B and Aleph.......The scribe of MS B finished Mark 16:8 near the bottom of a column, then left the next column entirely blank- the only blank column in the entire MS. This blank space may indicate that the copyist was reading from a torn or obliterated MS, and left a space hoping to supply the ending later from another source. Or he may have omitted the last twelve verses out of theological prejudice (evidence for this later). In any case, the empy column after verse 8 is large enough to contain the last twelve verses. this large blank space testifies loudly to the fact that the scribe of B knew there were other MSS of Mark that did not end at verse 8."

Bold not mine."Speaking in Other Tongues, A Scholarly Defense", Donald Barnett,D.D and Jeffrey McGregor, Th.B. Th.M., 1986. pages749,750.
manuscript Aleph has the leaf that would contain vs. 9-20 penned in a different hand than that of the rest of the manuscript.

The leaf of Aleph containing the omission is one of six leaves in Aleph that were not done by the hand that produced the rest of the MS. Tischendorf, who discovered Aleph, was the first to notice this. He contended that these six leaves were penned by the same scribe who produced MS B. Although that view has been overturned in recent years, , the fact remains that the omission of Mark 16:9-20 in Aleph is not the work of the original scribe of the MS. A later "corrector" inserted these leaves outright.....

IBID, pg.750.
I haven't read anywhere by anyone that Eusebius was an Arian. Your quote merely confirms what I said that prior to the council of nicea he worte a letter in support of retaining arias in his office. your quote is saying that he was on their side on the issue of retaining Arias in his office. It does not say Eusebius was on their side on every issue. it doesn't say he believed like they did.
I have never read anywhere by anyone that eusebius omitted the tiratic formula in matthew 28:19 because he was Arian. What I have read by trinitarians as to why he left it out is this. that he forgot. That he was using a short hand, thatit wasn't relevant to what he was talking about. Things like that.
Nothing in Your quote of Origen ," by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" says or implys that it came from the book of Matthew. my quote says the first part of matthew is in three places of his works and always without the triatic formula. I haven't the time to find search for it in his works, I'll rely on what Conybeare said it says.
Conybeare says clement sited a passage from a gnostic heretic containing the tiratic baptismal formula . you say I should find it in his works and show you. I don't have time. I will rely here on Conybeare.
Justin Martyr did not write in english, greek I suppose. It appears that you have a different translation of his work than the one i cited. The article i quoted is asserting that this portion of "dialogue with trypho" as you quoted it "that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ," is an echo of matthew 28:19. Being made disciples in the name of his christ sounds like "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’", the Eusebian quote of matthew 28:19 . It doesn/t sound like our current reading of Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

KJV Likewise, "who are recieveing gifts,...." sounds like it came from 1 cor 12. IMO. When Justin said "making disciples in the name of his Christ" he wasn;t talking about gifts he was talking about 'making disciples in the name of his christ.' . I see no passage in 1 cor 12 where he could get 'making disciples in the name of his chirst' from. nor do I know of any verse or passage in the bible where 'baptising in the name of his chirst and gifts are in association.
Justin said "baptising them in the name of his Christ" He got that information or idea from somewhere. The most obvious place would be Matthew 28:19, not scritures dealing with gifts. If I say, "We have to be baptised in the name of the father son and holy ghost and recieve the spiritual gifts that he has available" that does not mean i didn't get my idea about baptism in the tiratic formula from matthew 28:19 because I also said we need spiritual gifts.
{QUOTE=DR]No body is suggesting you buy the books. Have you ever heard of a library? There are public libraries and colleges and universities, particularly Theology schools, have books of Theology and church history, that anyone can read. If you are not going to make the slightest effort to verify what I post, at least have the integrity to not blow it off as “no evidence,” as you did, and then have the effrontery to copy paste quotes which did the same thing, paraphrase the conclusions of scholars and refer to the original work.[/QUOTE]
Don't have the time to check everything out to the extent you are requesting. I feel I'm doing about as well as I can.
I wish I could provide first hand quotes every time. I can;t. I don't think any of us can always. I try to . I have to rely on 2nd hand reports sometimes. I think all of us do , even you. when i asked you to provide something that was said by Riggenbach that prooves matthew 28:19 isn't authentic you did not provide anything, time and resource restrains?

 

[jessedance]

der alter;
Eusebius sided with the arians on some issues and not on others. Eusebius accused athanasius of being a modalist which he wasnt because of some of his believes. people accused Eusebius of being an arian on account of his association with some of them. but this was only afterthe council of nicea and not durring the time of his writings prior to 320 ad. Eusebius was from caeserea in palestine and wasa palastinian . Arias was from egypt i believe. Eusebius was vehemently opposed to the arian rejection of the son of god being eternal. at any rate , the catholic enyclopedia says the arians at the time ofthe council of nicea were not opposed to baptism in the tiratic formula. so to assert that he left off the triatic formula for that reason is untenable, and you don't have any schoraly support for that possition. Just your own opinon.

 

[LisaStar]

I don't know why people have to be so picky on things like this. If we beleive Jesus is Lord, isn't that what matters? Didn't he say to love each other and to live by his word? I think God looks at our lives how we live them compared to the life he gives us in the Bible. We have Jesus by the Spirit in us because they are the same - Spirit in us, Christ in us, God in us. The Bible says all 3 things but it says we have one spirit. Its either one spirit or 3 spirits, and the Bible says its one spirit.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and in you all. - Ephesians 4:4- 6

The Spirit of God dwells in you.Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin. - Romans 8:9 -10

 

[Starcrystal]

Starcrystal

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to see you are not a Modalist. However, I will humbly await your reply to the rest of the post that I made to you.

LetsBeLogical

Do you mean the Corinthians passage that states the saints will judge the world? I beleive that. Revelation 19 also bears this out if you also look at Jude 14 & 15. The saints come with Christ to judge the world, but I beleive this is a different judgement than the great white throne, which determines salvation, or the judgement seat of Christ where our Christian works are either rewarded or disgarded in the fire and burnt up.
I think my wifes post helps clarify a little more about the sameness and interchangeabilty of the 3 within the godhead. (Even if she did borrow Romans 8 from me after I posted it last night! )

 

[LetsBeLogical]

LisaStar

Your quote of Ephesians 4 just proved my point.

LetsBeLogical

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Starcrystal

Thanks again for the reply. However, I mentioned a couple of scriptures such as 1 Cor 15, Rev 3:12, and Acts 2. I was hoping to see what you think about those scriptures as well as my post that followed that one.

LetsBeLogical

 

[Peterson]

[Edited bya moderator]

The old "straw man" that the Holy Spirit has emotion, speaks etc. and therefore, the grand leap to the conclusion, that it must be a third god of a triad of gods, has no basis in Scripture whatever. Of course, the Holy Spirit has emotion and communicates and is a person, but that person is God the Father, and He speaks through His one and only source available to man - Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6-7; But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. Howbeit, there is not in every man this knowledge:

1 Timothy 2:5; For there is one God (Father), and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:17; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation of knowledge of Him.

Ephesians 4:6; One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Romans 8:14; For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (obviously the Father).

Philippians 2:5; Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.

Matthew 10:20; For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

1 Corinthians 2:16; For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him, but we have the mind of Christ.

Galatians 2:20; I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:

There are dozens of other verses which varify that the family of God consists of the Father and the Son only, and the Father is supreme, as Jesus himself stated in many places. The Trinity exists only in the minds of men.