Trinity is wrong.

Der Alte · Oct 2, 2009

2ducklow said:
your guess that rats ate the end of matthew is just that , your guess. your source only states that some manuscripts were damaged. I already knew , as does everybody, that old books sometimes get damaged by rats, hey i even got an old book in my barn that looks like a rat or mouse ate the edges of it. so proving old books get damaged by rats doesn't prove that matthew 28.19 is missing from manuscripts prior to the council of nicea because of rats.

Whose posts are you referring to? I have never mentioned rats.

you guess that that's the reason matthew 28.19 is misssing prior to the council of nicea. I on the other hand smell a rat when the foundation scripture for trinity only exists in greek manuscirpts AFTER the council of nicea and when Eusebius only quotes matthew 28.19 with the triune formula AFTER the council of Nicea. I smell a big rat. And the rat I smell is way more probable than your rat. play on words can be fun.

Let me see the Nicaean council was 325, 1684 ago. There is NO, ZERO, NONE evidence, of any kind, for any manipulation or forgery of Matt 28:19, in those 1684 years. Just a lot of meaningless guessing and supposition in the 20th century. I have presented evidence which explains damage and missing parts of ancient mss. including Matthew.

rats are rodents. And I'm not OTOH im 2ducklow.

Don't accuse me of saying words I did not say! OTOH is shorthand for "on the other hand."

Arians were not opposed to the triune formula so your point is mute. ........................ moot?........................... mooooooooooooht?

Where is your historical evidence that 4th century Arians were not opposed to the Triune formula? ZERO! ZILCH! ZIP!

some say he was full blown, some say he was semi arian. As I recall, it was Eusebiuses enemies who accused him of being full blown arian. not an unbiased source.

IOW you have NO, ZERO., NONE evidence for anything concerning Eusbius.

Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius

Athanasius- Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Selucia

"Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop, did not fear to say openly that Christ is not true God."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians
"He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might designate with the name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six books in defense of Origen which were written by Eusebius of Caesarea, whom every one knows to have been an Arian."

Jerome in his Second Book against Rufinius

"As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians),"

Theodoritus, in his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes as follows:

"If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it at least behooves them to believe Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call the chief advocate of their own doctrines."

From the Acts of the Seventh Oecumenical Council.

"For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who of those who have obtained a knowledge of true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius Pamphili has given himself over to false ways of thinking, and has become of the same opinion and of the same mind with those who follow after the opinions of Arius? In all his historical books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to be adored as second in rank. But if any speaking in his defense say that he subscribed in the council, we may admit that that is true; but while with his lips he has respected the truth, in his heart he is far from it, as all his writings and epistles go to show. But if from time to time, on account of circumstances or from different causes, he has become confused or has changed around, sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines of Arius, and at other times reigning the truth, he shows himself to be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways; and let him not think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.
* * *
For if He who is is one, it is plain that everything has been made by Him and after Him. But if He who is is not the only one, but there was also a Son existing, how did He who is beget him who was existing? For thus those existing would be two.' These things then Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander; but there are also other epistles of his directed to the same holy man, in which are found various blasphemies in defense of the followers of Arius. So also, in writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most openly; his letter begins thus: `I return to my Lord all thanks'; and farther on: `For we do not say that the Son was with the Father, but that the Father was before the Son. But the Son of God himself, knowing well that he was greater than all, and knowing that he was other than the Father, and less than and subject to Him, very piously teaches this to us also when he says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."' And farther on: `Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.' So then from these writings of his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of Arius and his followers. And with this rebellious heresy of theirs the inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in hypostatic union, and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body without soul, in his scheme of redemption, affirming that the divine nature supplied the purposes and movements of the soul: that, as Gregory the Divine says, they may ascribe suffering to the Deity; and it is evident that those who ascribe suffering to the Deity are Patripassians. Those who share in this heresy do not allow images, as the impious Severus did not, and Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, and all their followers, the many-headed yet headless hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to this faction, as has been shown from his epistles and historical writings, as a Patripassian rejected the image of Christ," etc.

Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine

"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses to his infirmity; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not repented. . . .But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he did not cease following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many sources; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, the error with regard to the common resurrection of us all, is to most persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly disease than he was by the Arian madness."

Joannes Zonaras, in his Third Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of Constantine.

"Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was at that time one of those who upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of Arius, and to have become of like mind with those who hold that the Son is coëqual and of the same nature with the Father, and to have been received into communion by the holy Fathers. Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to have defended the faithful. These things are found thus narrated by some; but he makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which he is seen to have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in many places in the above-mentioned work he seems to be following after Arius.
* * *
These and other things show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines, unless some one say that they were written before his conversion."

Suidas, from Sophronius.

"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful investigator of sacred literature, has published many books, among which are the following."

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

you sure get hot about the issue. Not good reasoning der alter. your reasoning that we are god haters because we think matthew 28,.19 is a forgery is about as logical as saying 3 is one. so I can see why you would think like that.

Click to expand...

What you think is irrelevant. What you can produce evidence for is abso-diddly squat.

so i see another aspect
of your reasoning here, if someone thinks matthew 28.19 is a forgery they are anti-bible, which is just as logical as 3 is one. so no surprise there really.
your quoting from the new edition, obviously Ratzinger had to change it cause he got too much heat from admitting that matthew 28.19 is afake. it's probably in the 68 or 69 edition. got thosetoo?

Click to expand...

I linked to and quoted the same edition you linked to. Having been proved wrong now you are frantically trying to make excuses, "obviously", probably", etc. Since you posted that garbage, the burden of proof in on you to prove it. You might want to read the actual book and explain how Ratzinger supposedly said Matt 28:19 was added by the church in a chapter where he is discussing the Apostle's creed? The misrepresented quote you posted reads exactly like the actual book, but with the insertion of Matt 28:19, in parentheses where it could NOT possibly be.

it's just like the new american bible that I have, St. Joesephs edition which is from the same open period in catholicism, 1968 or so, in which they admit in a foot note that it's possible that matthew 28.19 is a fake, but later editions expunge that footnote . they got caught and had to change it. just like they did way back when at the council of nicea.

what's your rule, catcxh somebody in a lie and you can't believe anything they say, ooops there goes all the cahtolic bibles that changed the footnote in the st. joe edition of the new american standard. aw shucks. wait Ratzinger modified that book twice so , whooops you can't read it either, cause he changed his mind due no doubt to catholic pressure about admiting that matthew 28.19 was a fake.your runnin out of surces der alter. whoops you said I was lieing even when i quoted mattew 28.19 footnote with a photo scan saying I made it up, until others pointed out i was right, so guess you can't believe anything you say either.

Click to expand...

You have NOT, and never will prove anything about Matt 28:19. All you can do is copy/paste any garbage you find on the internet, as long as it attacks the Biblical Trinity. As I have repeatedly shown you have NOT and evidently are incapable of finding and verifying credible evidence and I proved you wrong on your so-called quoted from the NAS before and will do so again. The words are there but they do NOT say what you claim they do.

2ducklow · Oct 2, 2009

Der Alter said:
Whose posts are you referring to? I have never mentioned rats. /

you said rodents, rats are rodents,check it out. It's not my fault if you don't know rats are rodents.

deralter said:
Let me see the Nicaean council was 325, 1684 ago. There is NO, ZERO, NONE evidence, of any kind, for any manipulation or forgery of Matt 28:19, in those 1684 years. Just a lot of meaningless guessing and supposition in the 20th century. I have presented evidence which explains damage and missing parts of ancient mss. including Matthew.

No you didn't.

deralter said:
Don't accuse me of saying words I did not say! OTOH is shorthand for "on the other hand."

You're the one slinging accusations of godhater, and anti bible my way,.

deralter said:
You copy/pasted that misrepresented quotation from one of a number of God hating websites

Do you think you might ever learn to actually check out anti-Bible stuff you find online?

deralter said:
Where is your historical evidence that 4th century Arians were not opposed to the Triune formula? ZERO! ZILCH! ZIP!

I've read it in several places. I've probably even quoted it to you in times past. I don't really care if they were or weren't as it is immaterial.

here's one though

Hosius, a representative of the Emperor Constantine, presides over an anti-Arian council in Antioch sometime during the early months of this year. This council condemns Eusebius of Caesarea for being an Arian sympathizer and formulates a doctrinal creed in favor of Alexander's theology

Click to expand...

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...r.htm+eusebius+arian&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

or this showing eusebius of caeserea was actually orthodox

Eusebius of Caesarea is considered by many to have been Arian and is usually referred to as the Arian biographer of Constantine. A quick look at his writings in his Ecclesiastic History, which is published in the links below show that he is in fact quite orthodox and holds to the true catholic position.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach....htm+eusebius+arian&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

like i said some think he was arain some think he only had arian sympathies. plu people get the two eusebiuses mixed up often. eusebius of nicodemia who was full blown arian, and eusebius of caeseria who wasn't.

deralter said:
IOW you have NO, ZERO., NONE evidence for anything concerning Eusbius.

we've had the eusebius discussion before. You know the quotes.

deralter said:
Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius

deralter said:
Athanasius- Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Selucia

"Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop, did not fear to say openly that Christ is not true God."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians
"He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might designate with the name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six books in defense of Origen which were written by Eusebius of Caesarea, whom every one knows to have been an Arian."

Jerome in his Second Book against Rufinius

"As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians),"

Theodoritus, in his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes as follows:

"If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it at least behooves them to believe Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call the chief advocate of their own doctrines."

From the Acts of the Seventh Oecumenical Council.

"For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who of those who have obtained a knowledge of true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius Pamphili has given himself over to false ways of thinking, and has become of the same opinion and of the same mind with those who follow after the opinions of Arius? In all his historical books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to be adored as second in rank. But if any speaking in his defense say that he subscribed in the council, we may admit that that is true; but while with his lips he has respected the truth, in his heart he is far from it, as all his writings and epistles go to show. But if from time to time, on account of circumstances or from different causes, he has become confused or has changed around, sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines of Arius, and at other times reigning the truth, he shows himself to be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways; and let him not think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.
* * *
For if He who is is one, it is plain that everything has been made by Him and after Him. But if He who is is not the only one, but there was also a Son existing, how did He who is beget him who was existing? For thus those existing would be two.' These things then Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander; but there are also other epistles of his directed to the same holy man, in which are found various blasphemies in defense of the followers of Arius. So also, in writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most openly; his letter begins thus: `I return to my Lord all thanks'; and farther on: `For we do not say that the Son was with the Father, but that the Father was before the Son. But the Son of God himself, knowing well that he was greater than all, and knowing that he was other than the Father, and less than and subject to Him, very piously teaches this to us also when he says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."' And farther on: `Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.' So then from these writings of his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of Arius and his followers. And with this rebellious heresy of theirs the inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in hypostatic union, and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body without soul, in his scheme of redemption, affirming that the divine nature supplied the purposes and movements of the soul: that, as Gregory the Divine says, they may ascribe suffering to the Deity; and it is evident that those who ascribe suffering to the Deity are Patripassians. Those who share in this heresy do not allow images, as the impious Severus did not, and Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, and all their followers, the many-headed yet headless hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to this faction, as has been shown from his epistles and historical writings, as a Patripassian rejected the image of Christ," etc.

Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine

"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses to his infirmity; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not repented. . . .But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he did not cease following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many sources; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, the error with regard to the common resurrection of us all, is to most persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly disease than he was by the Arian madness."

Joannes Zonaras, in his Third Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of Constantine.

"Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was at that time one of those who upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of Arius, and to have become of like mind with those who hold that the Son is coëqual and of the same nature with the Father, and to have been received into communion by the holy Fathers. Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to have defended the faithful. These things are found thus narrated by some; but he makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which he is seen to have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in many places in the above-mentioned work he seems to be following after Arius.
* * *
These and other things show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines, unless some one say that they were written before his conversion."

Suidas, from Sophronius.

"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful investigator of sacred literature, has published many books, among which are the following."

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

What you think is irrelevant. What you can produce evidence for is abso-diddly squat.

theere you go again with you can guess but no one else can..

deralter said:
I linked to and quoted the same edition you linked to. Having been proved wrong now you are frantically trying to make excuses,
[/qutoe] looks more like to me that you are frantically trying to hold on to the onlly proof text of trinity left that hasn't been totally proven to be a forgery. (aka, 1 john 5.7) without matthew 28.19 trinity is sunk.

deralter said:

"obviously", probably", etc. Since you posted that garbage, the burden of proof in on you to prove it. You might want to read the actual book and explain how Ratzinger supposedly said Matt 28:19 was added by the church in a chapter where he is discussing the Apostle's creed? The misrepresented quote you posted reads exactly like the actual book, but with the insertion of Matt 28:19, in parentheses where it could NOT possibly be.

Click to expand...

they expunged the admission that matthew 28l.19 is a fiorgery out of the new american bible, likesise they did it with Ratzingers book. you quoted the last edition not the first edition, so you've offered no proof he didn't say it..

deralter said:

You have NOT, and never will prove anything about Matt 28:19. All you can do is copy/paste any garbage you find on the internet, as long as it attacks the Biblical Trinity. As I have repeatedly shown you have NOT and evidently are incapable of finding and verifying credible evidence and I proved you wrong on your so-called quoted from the NAS before and will do so again. The words are there but they do NOT say what you claim they do.

Click to expand...

you only proved that ratzinger changed his story 2 times. you don't have the 1968 original edition so all we have is your guess that he didn't origninally say it. why wouldn't he say it? everybody else is.

Der Alte · Oct 2, 2009

2ducklow said:
they expunged the admission that matthew 28l.19 is a fiorgery out of the new american bible, likesise they did it with Ratzingers book. you quoted the last edition not the first edition, so you've offered no proof he didn't say it..

you only proved that ratzinger changed his story 2 times. you don't have the 1968 original edition so all we have is your guess that he didn't origninally say it. why wouldn't he say it? everybody else is..

I don't have the 1968 edition? You do NOT have anything, but an alleged quote online. You continue to prove anti-Trinitarians will believe anything, written by anybody, anywhere as long as it attacks the Biblical church!

You have NOT quoted anything by Ratzinger. You copy/pasted a base lie from an anonymous website. You claim all this stuff was supposed to have been changed, but you don't have any direct evidence that any of it ever existed, just 2d-3d-4th hand quotes from anonymous people, just like you, whose only purpose in life is to try to destroy true Christianity. Where is the evidence? "Evil Christianity changed this, they changed that, they changed something else. There is NO evidence but we know it was changed because some anonymous dood said so on his anonymous website."

2ducklow · Oct 2, 2009

Der Alter said:
I don't have the 1968 edition? You do NOT have anything, but an alleged quote online. You continue to prove anti-Trinitarians will believe anything, written by anybody, anywhere as long as it attacks the Biblical church!

You have NOT quoted anything by Ratzinger. You copy/pasted a base lie from an anonymous website.

you don't have the 1968 edition yet you call them liars. obviously you don't need any proof to call someone a liar.

deralter said:
You claim all this stuff was supposed to have been changed, but you don't have any direct evidence that any of it ever existed, just 2d-3d-4th hand quotes from anonymous people, just like you, whose only purpose in life is to try to destroy true Christianity.

lets see you've hurled god haters, anti bible, now destroyers of true christianity at me. anything else to prove your beliefs?
hey i stole a 10 cent bottle of ink from a grocery store in 1956 . you could add thief to it.

deralter said:
Where is the evidence?

i gave you the evidence of the st. Joesephs edition, the footnote for mattew 28.19 where they admited that matthew 28.19 may have been a forgery. OI showed you previously in our discussions that this was the same time frame, late 60's wherein there was a more openness in catholicism which was quickkly closed shortly after which resulted in them eiditing the st. joe edition and coming out with one without the admission of forgery in matthw 28. 19. It takes no great leap of logic to realize that Ratzinger suffered the same fate.
quote something from the 1968 version and you got an argument, but you don't.

deralter said:
"Evil Christianity changed this, they changed that, they changed something else. There is NO evidence but we know it was changed because some anonymous dood said so on his anonymous website."

interpoltation and spuriousness in the bible is a fact. and I gave the reason for why it most likely was expunged from the 68 version and my reason wasn't some dood.

Der Alte · Oct 2, 2009

2ducklow said:
you don't have the 1968 edition yet you call them liars. obviously you don't need any proof to call someone a liar.
lets see you've hurled god haters, anti bible, now destroyers of true christianity at me. anything else to prove your beliefs?

Maybe you should actually read the link I posted. Go to the very front of the book and check the copyright citations. Then you prove that anything was changed. As I said you have never seen any edition except what I linked to. You quoted some god hater who was quoting another god hater who claimed to quote Cardinal Ratzinger. When you can produce actual first hand evidence of anything let me know, instead of every piece of god hating rubbish you google online.

i gave you the evidence of the st. Joesephs edition, the footnote for mattew 28.19 where they admited that matthew 28.19 may have been a forgery.

Your so-called quote did NOT show that anyone admitted anything about Matt 28;19. I proved that quite a few years ago but you refuse to admit you were proven wrong, as always.

OI showed you previously in our discussions that this was the same time frame, late 60's wherein there was a more openness in catholicism which was quickkly closed shortly after which resulted in them eiditing the st. joe edition and coming out with one without the admission of forgery in matthw 28. 19. It takes no great leap of logic to realize that Ratzinger suffered the same fate.

You did NOT show or prove anything about the late 60s. You made a bunch of assertions but NO, NONE, ZERO credible evidence.

quote something from the 1968 version and you got an argument, but you don't.
interpoltation and spuriousness in the bible is a fact.

I did quote from the 1968, 1969, and 2004 edition. You did not quote any version, just some 2d-3d hand quote from two god hating websites. You posted the so-called quote, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is factual. I have already proved it is not!

and I gave the reason for why it most likely was expunged from the 68 version and my reason wasn't some dood.

You did NOT, cannot give a reason, you gave nothing but empty, meaningless opinion. There is only one person here quoting first hand evidence, me! You are doing what you have always done, dumpster diving online, quoting any piece of rubbish you can find, from any god hating website, and claim that it proves something.

If you can ever find any first hand primary evidence let me know.

2ducklow · Oct 2, 2009

Der Alter said:
Maybe you should actually read the link I posted. Go to the very front of the book and check the copyright citations. Then you prove that anything was changed. As I said you have never seen any edition except what I linked to. You quoted some god hater who was quoting another god hater who claimed to quote Cardinal Ratzinger. When you can produce actual first hand evidence of anything let me know, instead of every piece of god hating rubbish you google online.

you sure do like to say god hater.

deralter said:
Your so-called quote did NOT show that anyone admitted anything about Matt 28;19. I proved that quite a few years ago but you refuse to admit you were proven wrong, as always.

I refuse to admit it cause you didn't.

deralter said:
You did NOT show or prove anything about the late 60s. You made a bunch of assertions but NO, NONE, ZERO credible evidence.

deralter said:
I did quote from the 1968, 1969, and 2004 edition.

deralter said:
You did not quote any version, just some 2d-3d hand quote from two god hating websites. You posted the so-called quote, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is factual. I have already proved it is not!

.

deralter said:
You did NOT, cannot give a reason, you gave nothing but empty, meaningless opinion. There is only one person here quoting first hand evidence, me!

the quote from my source is identical with the firsthand source you quoted.

"the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome;" not from scripture but from rome, baptism in the triune name originated in Rome not in scripture.

case closed.

deralter said:
You are doing what you have always done, dumpster diving online, quoting any piece of rubbish you can find, from any god hating website, and claim that it proves something.

If you can ever find any first hand primary evidence let me know.

you really think I'm a god hater?

Godfixated · Oct 3, 2009

2ducklow said:
How do you explain Philip baptising the Eunuch in water then?

Acts 8:35-38 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

The Eunuch knew only the baptism of John and Philip went along with. The Eunuch after he had said that he believed was baptized in the holy spirit. Philip was an evangelist and thus, his primary focus was bringing people to God and Christ. Thus, the water baptism was actually inconsequential to the Eunuch becoming saved. A similar record is earlier in Acts 8 when Philip was in Samaria. He preached, performed miracles, and brought people to God, but that is where he ended. They received (dechomai, Greek word meaning received) holy spirit but they had not manifested (lambano, Greek for received with manifestation) holy spirit; so, Peter and John had to come and actually do the nuts and bolts teaching because they were the teachers and apostles.

Der Alte · Oct 3, 2009

2ducklow said:
[ . . . ]"the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome;" not from scripture but from rome, baptism in the triune name originated in Rome not in scripture.

case closed.

you really think I'm a god hater?[ . . . ]

As with all false religionites you misquote, quote out-of-context, and deliberately misrepresent sources trying to make them say what you want them to.

The website you quoted deliberately quoted one sentence out-of-context, and inserted words into the text trying to make it say what it did not say. Now you have further quoted it out of-context deliberately omitting words trying to twist it to make it say what you want it to. Here is the complete quote again, just as it appears in the book.

Introductory Remarks on the History and Structure of the Apostles' Creed.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "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."

I'm going to post it again and point out the truth that you have repeatedly ignored.

Note that the title of the chapter from which the quote is taken, "Introductory Remarks on the History and Structure of the Apostles' Creed." The subject is the Apostle's creed not Matt 28:19. The subject is repeated in the first sentence, the creed NOT Matt 28:19.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the [Apostle's] Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure.
The next sentence again refers to the creed, i.e. "our profession of faith." The Apostle's creed is frequently recited as a profession of faith, in churches, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, etc." Matt 28:19, is never recited as a profession of faith.

The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism.
The "it" and the "text" referred to in this next sentence is the Apostle's creed, the same subject as in the preceding two sentences and the subject of the paragraph, not Matt 28:19. The Apostle's creed was recited by new believers before baptism.

So far as its [Apostle's creed] place of origin is concerned, the text [of the Apostle's creed] comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism.
This last sentence again shows that the posted quote is a lie, because Cardinal Ratzinger would not have said, as you claim, the text of Matt 28:19 originated in the city of Rome and then say those words were based on the words of Christ in Matthew 28:19: "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."

This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "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."
Here Cardinal Ratzinger very clearly states that the words "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." are the very words of Christ in Matt 28:19.

Did I say you were a godhater? I said virtually everything you copy/paste comes from a god hating website. Don't like that? Then stop believing everything you find at some rubbish website.

2ducklow · Oct 3, 2009

Der Alter said:
As with all false religionites you misquote, quote out-of-context, and deliberately misrepresent sources trying to make them say what you want them to.

The website you quoted deliberately quoted one sentence out-of-context, and inserted words into the text trying to make it say what it did not say. Now you have further quoted it out of-context deliberately omitting words trying to twist it to make it say what you want it to. Here is the complete quote again, just as it appears in the book.

Introductory Remarks on the History and Structure of the Apostles' Creed.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "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."

I'm going to post it again and point out the truth that you have repeatedly ignored.

Note that the title of the chapter from which the quote is taken, "Introductory Remarks on the History and Structure of the Apostles' Creed." The subject is the Apostle's creed not Matt 28:19. The subject is repeated in the first sentence, the creed NOT Matt 28:19.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the [Apostle's] Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure.

The next sentence again refers to the creed, i.e. "our profession of faith." The Apostle's creed is frequently recited as a profession of faith, in churches, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, etc." Matt 28:19, is never recited as a profession of faith.

The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism.

The "it" and the "text" referred to in this next sentence is the Apostle's creed, the same subject as in the preceding two sentences and the subject of the paragraph, not Matt 28:19. The Apostle's creed was recited by new believers before baptism.

So far as its [Apostle's creed] place of origin is concerned, the text [of the Apostle's creed] comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism.

Nope, Ratzinger is saying the its and the text is refering to baptism text which he says originated in Rome, not the bible. the text of matthew 28.19's origin is in worship and from the city of rome. he doesn't say baptism's origin is the words of christ, its origin is rome and early 2nd and 3rd centurey worship.

what ??? you think catholics, who invented trinity, and matthew 28.19 are gonna come right out and say it stragith up? no way, it's gonna be veiled like it is here.

deralter said:
This last sentence again shows that the posted quote is a lie, because Cardinal Ratzinger would not have said, as you claim, the text of Matt 28:19 originated in the city of Rome and then say those words were based on the words of Christ in Matthew 28:19: "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."

Sure he would for the reason I stated, Catholics consider church tradition equal to scripture, so they invented the trinity baptism and it became traditino, thus to catholics it is what Jesus said. Just like you, for all practical purposes equate the so called ecf with scripture.

deraltwer said:
This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "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."

deraltwer said:
Here Cardinal Ratzinger very clearly states that the words "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." are the very words of Christ in Matt 28:19.

yea cause they inveneted um and they became tradition therefore they became, to catholics , the words of Christ.

deratler said:
Did I say you were a godhater?

can't deny it can you?

deralter said:
I said virtually everything you copy/paste comes from a god hating website. Don't like that? Then stop believing everything you find at some rubbish website.

you only said god hater twice in this thread.

Der Alte · Oct 3, 2009

2ducklow said:
Nope, Ratzinger is saying the its and the text is refering to baptism text which he says originated in Rome, not the bible.the text of matthew 28.19's origin is in worship and from the city of rome. he doesn't say baptism's origin is the words of christ, its origin is rome and early 2nd and 3rd centurey worship.

This entire statement is convoluted and makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that the above paragraph from Cardinal Ratzinger's book, is four sentences which discuss the Apostle's creed, and concludes that the Apostle's creed is based on the words of Jesus in Matt 28:19.

what ??? you think catholics, who invented trinity, and matthew 28.19 are gonna come right out and say it stragith up? no way, it's gonna be veiled like it is here.

What? You have been arguing for days that Cardinal Ratzinger openly admitted that the words of Matt 28:19 were invented by Rome in the 2d-3d century now you flip flop and say he did not openly say it. First you claimed Ratzinger's book was changed between the 1968 edition and the 2004 reprint, to cover up his openly admitting that Matt 28:19 was an RCC invention, now you claim it was not openly stated. Which is it, can't you get your story straight?

Sure he would for the reason I stated, Catholics consider church tradition equal to scripture, so they invented the trinity baptism and it became traditino, thus to catholics it is what Jesus said. Just like you, for all practical purposes equate the so called ecf with scripture. yea cause they inveneted um and they became tradition therefore they became, to catholics , the words of Christ.

Blind hatred of the Catholic church and Catholicism is NOT evidence. Neither you nor anyone else fomenting hatred of Catholicism has proved any of this. The above quote from Cardinal Ratzinger does not state or imply any of this. Every attempt to prove otherwise, including yours, deliberately misrepresents, misquotes the text.

can't deny it can you?

Can't prove your false accusation, can you?

you only said god hater twice in this thread.

Your point is? Just had a thought. Maybe you can surprise me and one day post something which does not twist and distort what I or some source says, or does not flip flop like this post. I can only imagine.

2ducklow · Oct 4, 2009

Der Alter said:
This entire statement is convoluted and makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that the above paragraph from Cardinal Ratzinger's book, is four sentences which discuss the Apostle's creed, and concludes that the Apostle's creed is based on the words of Jesus in Matt 28:19.

Ratzinger is obviously no dummy, he well knows that catholics invented the trinity and matthew 28.19, he's read the catholic works and it appears from this book non catholic as well that point out the spuriousnes of matthew 28.19, I'm sure he is familar with the new jerusalem bible, which miurors the footnote for matthrew 28.19 in the st. Jo edition of the new american bible. What?,you think Ratzinger never heard that matthew 28.19 is a fraud? so how's he gonna say it? in some veiled way as he did in his book. he's a catholic remember.

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,"..."

A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

my catholic bible says the same thing as the new jerusalmen bible.

they know, they just don't want to publicise it.

What? You have been arguing for days that Cardinal Ratzinger openly admitted that the words of Matt 28:19 were invented by Rome in the 2d-3d century now you flip flop and say he did not openly say it. First you claimed Ratzinger's book was changed between the 1968 edition and the 2004 reprint, to cover up his openly admitting that Matt 28:19 was an RCC invention, now you claim it was not openly stated. Which is it, can't you get your story straight?

I think i read somewhere that it had been edited.

deralter said:
Blind hatred of the Catholic church and Catholicism is NOT evidence. Neither you nor anyone else fomenting hatred of Catholicism has proved any of this. The above quote from Cardinal Ratzinger does not state or imply any of this. Every attempt to prove otherwise, including yours, deliberately misrepresents, misquotes the text.

'fomenting hatred" hey that's a twist on your "god haters" and 'dumpster diving" and "garbage" proofs.

deralter said:
Can't prove your false accusation, can you?

whut?

deralter said:
Your point is? Just had a thought. Maybe you can surprise me and one day post something which does not twist and distort what I or some source says, or does not flip flop like this post. I can only imagine.

here's some more proof that matthew 28.19 is a phoney ( in the spurious triune name version)

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:

The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.

According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.

The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."

No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.

But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.

Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.

Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."

Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.

"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."

A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

looks like we've found some more good stuff. hee's some more good stuff in short clip form.

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."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:

"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.

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,"..."

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."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:

"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."

A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

so it's no secret to catholic higher ups, they know these facts.

Der Alte · Oct 4, 2009

2ducklow said:
Ratzinger is obviously no dummy, he well knows that catholics invented the trinity and matthew 28.19, he's read the catholic works and it appears from this book non catholic as well that point out the spuriousnes of matthew 28.19, I'm sure he is familar with the new jerusalem bible, which miurors the footnote for matthrew 28.19 in the st. Jo edition of the new american bible. What?,you think Ratzinger never heard that matthew 28.19 is a fraud? so how's he gonna say it? in some veiled way as he did in his book. he's a catholic remember.

Now you can read everybody's mind and know what they knew, thought, etc., why they did or said something. Still doesn't explain you first saying that Ratzinger "admitted" that Matt 28:19 was changed, then you said it was said in some kind of hidden way that evidently only you could decipher.

my catholic bible says the same thing as the new jerusalmen bible.

No it does not!

they know, they just don't want to publicise it.

Anti-RCC hater mongering with NO, ZERO, NONE, evidence!

I think i read somewhere that it had been edited.

No you did NOT it was a false argument you made up on the spot when I posted the link to the actual book, and your copy/paste was proven to be a lie.

here's some more proof that matthew 28.19 is a phoney ( in the spurious triune name version)

More garbage from the same website where you copy/pasted the blatant lie about Cardinal Ratzinger. And I have refuted most of them many times in this forum. Several in a post to you recently

so it's no secret to catholic higher ups, they know these facts.

No facts here, misquotes, out-of-context quotes, misrepresentations, half truths, and out and out lies. If you think there is any truth there, many of these sources are online, Catholic Encyclopedia, ISBE, Schaff-Herzog, quote directly from and link to the primary sources, then you might have an argument. The so-called quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia and ISBE are blatant lies, and Schaff-Herzog is out-of-context.

2ducklow · Oct 5, 2009

Der Alter said:
Now you can read everybody's mind and know what they knew, thought, etc., why they did or said something. Still doesn't explain you first saying that Ratzinger "admitted" that Matt 28:19 was changed, then you said it was said in some kind of hidden way that evidently only you could decipher.

No it does not!

Anti-RCC hater mongering with NO, ZERO, NONE, evidence!

No you did NOT it was a false argument you made up on the spot when I posted the link to the actual book, and your copy/paste was proven to be a lie.

the copy /paste said exactly, word for word, the same thing your on line source said, and you call it a lie, that would mean that your on line source was a lie then. oh well prove um wrong and they resort to "it was a lie" what can I say.

deralter said:
More garbage from the same website where you copy/pasted the blatant lie about Cardinal Ratzinger. And I have refuted most of them many times in this forum. Several in a post to you recently

No facts here, misquotes, out-of-context quotes, misrepresentations, half truths, and out and out lies. If you think there is any truth there, many of these sources are online, Catholic Encyclopedia, ISBE, Schaff-Herzog, quote directly from and link to the primary sources, then you might have an argument. The so-called quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia and ISBE are blatant lies, and Schaff-Herzog is out-of-context.

Matthew 28.19 is proven to be fraudulent on 3 grounds, textual, literalry, and historical criticism.
oh new game , i counted 5 times you said lies (including one time 'made up"). I got tired of the old game counting how many times you says 'godhaters".

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

Why have we no copies of the Scriptures written earlier than the 5th century (except for the two which were written in the 4th century)?

The Evidence Of Eusebius
Having introduced the first witness, it is time to ascertain what he wrote concerning the text of Matthew 28:19.

According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: "

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

Is Matthew 28:19 Spurious

so what you got is one verse that trinity hangs it's hat on and it's authenticity is impune on 3 grounds, textual , literary, and historical criticism. God would not hang his hat on one verse of scritprue and alllow it's authienticity to be impuned on several grounds, he would have stated it several times . There is built in redundancy for any doctrine in the b ible so that it becomes impossible for it to be expunged from the b ible. Not the case with trinity. trinity is based on only two spurious scriptures, 1 john 5.7 and matthew 28.19. 1 john 5.7 has decisiovely been proven to be fraudulent. all that is left is matthew 28.19, and the evidience to the objective student is overwhelming that it too is fraudulent on the 3 aforementioned grounds. I gave numerous authoritative sources confirming this to which your basic reply was that everybody is a liar. I don't know what to say, your quote even shows that what I quoted was exactly what Ratzinger said and you still say it's a lie.

here's some more good stuff proving the triune fromula is a phoney.

ONE TEST is that of the CONTEXT
Examining the context, we find that in the AV the sense of the passage is hindered, but if we read as under, the whole context fits together and the tenor of the instruction is complete:
"All power is given unto ME ... go therefore... baptizing in MY name, teaching them... whatsoever I have commanded... I am with you..."

ANOTHER TEST is that of FREQUENCY
Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" used elsewhere in Scripture? NOT ONCE!
Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? YES! 17 times!
Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5
Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17
Luke 9:48; 21:8
John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26, etc..

ANOTHER TEST is that of ARGUMENT
Is any argument is Scripture based on the fact of the threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name?
None whatever!
Is any argument in Scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus?
Yes! This is the argument in 1 Cor. 1:13:
"Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" From this argument, if carefully analyzed, it will appear that believers ought to be baptized in the name of that One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His amazing love, gave us His beloved Son, who by the Spirit was raised to incorruptibility, but it is the Lord Himself who was crucified, and in HIS name, therefore, must believers be baptized in water.

Is Matthew 28:19 Spurious

Der Alte · Oct 5, 2009

2ducklow said:
the copy /paste said exactly, word for word, the same thing your on line source said, and you call it a lie, that would mean that your on line source was a lie then. oh well prove um wrong and they resort to "it was a lie" what can I say.

No, your copy/paste from Willis does NOT say the same thing the actual source does. It had the words "Mathew 28:19" and "Mathew 28:19, Trinitarian" in 2 sentences which was addressing the Apostle's creed. It omitted the title of the article and several sentences which clearly showed that the insertion of those words was a blatant lie. You first claimed that your undated copy/paste openly admitted that Matt 28:19 was changed or added by the RCC. Then you claimed that it was not openly stated but written in some kind of secret writing that only you could figure out that it meant Matt 28:19 was written by the RCC.

Matthew 28.19 is proven to be fraudulent on 3 grounds, textual, literalry, and historical criticism.

Nothing is "proven" by any of your 2d-3rd hand copy/pastes. One anonymous source dating to 1962 by someone who claims his name was A Ploughman, otherwise unknown, making unsupported and unverified claims, and arguments, most of which have been proven false NOT proof of anything.

so what you got is one verse that trinity hangs it's hat on and it's authenticity is impune on 3 grounds, textual , literary, and historical criticism. God would not hang his hat on one verse of scritprue and alllow it's authienticity to be impuned on several grounds, he would have stated it several times . There is built in redundancy for any doctrine in the b ible so that it becomes impossible for it to be expunged from the b ible. Not the case with trinity. trinity is based on only two spurious scriptures, 1 john 5.7 and matthew 28.19. 1 john 5.7 has decisiovely been proven to be fraudulent. all that is left is matthew 28.19, and the evidience to the objective student is overwhelming that it too is fraudulent on the 3 aforementioned grounds. I gave numerous authoritative sources confirming this to which your basic reply was that everybody is a liar. I don't know what to say, your quote even shows that what I quoted was exactly what Ratzinger said and you still say it's a lie.

The Trinity is based on the totality of scripture. There is NO, ZERO, NONE clear cut evidence that either Matt 28:19 or 1 John 5:7 are spurious. 1 John 5:7 was quoted as scripture, by the ECF, 1400 years before it was supposedly inserted in a manuscript.

here's some more good stuff proving the triune fromula is a phoney

More garbage from the same garbage dump from which you got the lie about Cardinal Ratzinger! NO, NONE, ZERO credible, verifiable, historical evidence from a legitimate, primary source. Gullible people will believe anything, written, by anybody, anywhere as long as it appears to support their assumptions/presuppositions. If you want to post some good stuff, quote directly from the real primary sources, e.g. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917 Encyclopedia Brittanica, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Schaff-Herzog, etc. and see if the real deal supports your copy/pastes from Willis' dump site?

Barring any direct evidence from you from credible, verifiable sources I'm outta here.

2ducklow · Oct 5, 2009

Der Alter said:
No, your copy/paste from Willis does NOT say the same thing the actual source does. It had the words "Mathew 28:19" and "Mathew 28:19, Trinitarian" in 2 sentences which was addressing the Apostle's creed. It omitted the title of the article and several sentences which clearly showed that the insertion of those words was a blatant lie.

their opinion is he meant matthew 28.19 your opinon is something else entire. difernece of opinon isn't a lie.

deralter said:
You first claimed that your undated copy/paste openly admitted that Matt 28:19 was changed or added by the RCC.

hyperbole

deralter said:
Then you claimed that it was not openly stated but written in some kind of secret writing that only you could figure out that it meant Matt 28:19 was written by the RCC.

calirfication of the hyperbole. and I didn't say it was secret writing i just said they weren't going to blatantly state it but in some kind of backhanded way, which he did do.

deralter said:
Nothing is "proven" by any of your 2d-3rd hand copy/pastes. One anonymous source dating to 1962 by someone who claims his name was A Ploughman, otherwise unknown, making unsupported and unverified claims, and arguments, most of which have been proven false NOT proof of anything.

The Trinity is based on the totality of scripture. There is NO, ZERO, NONE clear cut evidence that either Matt 28:19 or 1 John 5:7 are spurious. 1 John 5:7 was quoted as scripture, by the ECF, 1400 years before it was supposedly inserted in a manuscript.

most heavy duty scholars disagree with you. almost all scholars claim 1 john 5.7 is a phoney. thA Textual Commentary on the New Testament by Bruce Metzger says "that these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain...." The UBS gave the reading of 1 john 5.7 without the trinitarian addition an A rating, meaning it is certain that `1 john 5.7 does not contain the spurious trinitarian addition. So according to you dera lter, the UBS and Metzger based their finding on no clear cut evidence . I'm sure they woul;d vehemently disagree with you. Looks like your in with the KJV only crowd on this one. There about the only ones who believe the trinity spurious additon to 1 john 5.7 (called the joahnna comma) to be genuiine. well, when you think about it, it makes about as much sense to say kjv only as it does to say the johannian comma is genuine, or verbs have no subjects, the action of is, that sort of thing..

deralter said:
More garbage from the same garbage dump from which you got the lie about Cardinal Ratzinger! NO, NONE, ZERO credible, verifiable, historical evidence from a legitimate, primary source. Gullible people will believe anything, written, by anybody, anywhere as long as it appears to support their assumptions/presuppositions. If you want to post some good stuff, quote directly from the real primary sources, e.g. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917 Encyclopedia Brittanica, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Schaff-Herzog, etc. and see if the real deal supports your copy/pastes from Willis' dump site?

Barring any direct evidence from you from credible, verifiable sources I'm outta here.

adios.

heres some more good stuff to chew on.

Did Church officials insert this obvious Trinitarian phrase into the Holy Scriptures when the Latin Vulgate was written in 405 C.E.? *Why is Matthew 28:19 different then all other references to baptism? *If the Catholic Church has admitted to altering 1 John 5:7-8 in the original manuscripts, why wouldn't they also alter Matthew 28:19 to fit their Trinity Belief? Get the point? Matthew wrote his manuscript 350 years before Gerome wrote the Latin Vulgate. Someone falsely inserted the Trinitarian Formula, "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." It was evidently no coincidence that the Roman Church adopted the Trinity just 20 years earlier. Lack of Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19-20 is unique but seems to be in codices that Eusebius found in Caesarea: he quotes (H.E. 3.5.2): "They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, 'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.'". New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: “The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel.” The early Christian writers assert that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to Matthew?

Who Altered Matthew 28;19

wow!!!! look what the New Advent Catholic bible says about the authenticy of matthew 28.19. Catholics in the know know.

Der Alte · Oct 7, 2009

2ducklow said:
[ . . . ]wow!!!! look what the New Advent Catholic bible says about the authenticy of matthew 28.19. Catholics in the know know.

Wow look, more copy/pastes from anti-Christian, anti-Bible hazardous waste dump sites, by some anonymous dood, online. NO, ZERO, NONE credible, verifiable, historical evidence. Gullible people will believe anything, no matter how incredulous or bizarre, written anywhere, by anybody as long as it supports their biases, assumptions, and presuppositions. If a web sites claims to be quoting a credible source, such as the "New Advent Catholic bible" those who are easily led and deceived will believe it without question. Why investigate or check anything let someone else do your thinking for you.

Here are actual quotes three of the alleged sources from the hazardous waste dump site, linked to before. Note they don't say what Duck claims they say.

Catholic Encyclopedia – Baptism -Institution of the sacrament

That Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism is unquestionable. Rationalists, like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling out the texts which prove it. Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."

Form
The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

1. Are Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15,16 Genuine?:
Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f) argue that the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19 is spurious, and that the text in Mk belongs to a section which was added to this Gospel at a later time. The former claim had first been advanced by Conybeare, but later research by Riggenbach has established the genuineness of the Trinitarian formula in Mt. Feine still maintains his doubts, however, on subjective grounds. As to the concluding section in Mk (16:9-20), Jerome is the first to call attention to its omission in most Greek manuscripts to which he had access. But Jerome himself acknowledged Mk 16:14 as genuine. Gregory of Nyssa reports that, while this section is missing in some manuscripts, in the more accurate ones many manuscripts contain it. No doctrinal scruple can arise on account of this section; for it contains nothing that is contrary to the doctrine of Scripture in other places on the same subject; and it has always been treated as genuine by the Christian church. The question is a purely historical one (see Bengel, Apparatus Criticus, 170 f).

Bible History Online - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Tom Harpur- The Pagan Christ
From Publishers Weekly
Harpur, a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto, delves into the foundations of the Christian faith, questioning the historicity of the Bible, reinterpreting the familiar stories and restoring what he considers the inner meaning of scriptural texts. "Taken literally, they present a world of abnormal events totally unrelated to people's authentic living today." He documents the many traditions that predate Christianity and parallel the familiar Bible story. He sees Christianity, and the Bible itself, as a rehash of these traditions, merely imitative rather than a record of actual, historical events. He goes so far as to question the existence of the historical Jesus. Harpur believes that the early church establishment, through deliberate acts of suppression and the destruction of books that might challenge the orthodox view (most famously in the Alexandrian Library), shaped a rigid institution unable to cope with an evolving world. He insists that a major change must take place in order for Christianity to survive. His solution is termed "Cosmic Christianity"—a radical reinterpretation not just of the Bible but of the nature of the Christian faith and its links to the world's great spiritual traditions. Harpur's arguments, themselves a rehash of earlier scholarship, are unlikely to convince readers who are not already inclined to his views. (Mar. 27)

Amazon.com: Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures (9781599867458): Alvin Boyd Kuhn: Books

2ducklow · Oct 7, 2009

Der Alter said:
Wow look, more copy/pastes from anti-Christian, anti-Bible hazardous waste dump sites, by some anonymous dood, online. NO, ZERO, NONE credible, verifiable, historical evidence. Gullible people will believe anything, no matter how incredulous or bizarre, written anywhere, by anybody as long as it supports their biases, assumptions, and presuppositions. If a web sites claims to be quoting a credible source, such as the "New Advent Catholic bible" those who are easily led and deceived will believe it without question. Why investigate or check anything let someone else do your thinking for you.

I thought you said you was leaving? you tryin to trick me or whut?

Anyway, your reasoning is faulty. Even if you find one misquote, or misrepresentation, it doesn't mean that every argument they put forth, and everything they quote is inaccurate. finding one misquote, doesn't make another quote inaccurate. In fact every misquote you supposedly find is in reality exactly as they said it was, the only difference, which you call a misquote or a lie, is in what the quote means.

deralter said:
Here are actual quotes three of the alleged sources from the hazardous waste dump site, linked to before. Note they don't say what Duck claims they say.

Catholic Encyclopedia – Baptism -Institution of the sacrament

That Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism is unquestionable. Rationalists, like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling out the texts which prove it. Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."

Form
The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism

the catholic encylopedia is not the new advent catholci bible. you've proved nothing. besides you'r quoting from a differnt catholic encylopedia than the one my source quotes from.

deralter said:
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

1. Are Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15,16 Genuine?:
Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f) argue that the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19 is spurious, and that the text in Mk belongs to a section which was added to this Gospel at a later time. The former claim had first been advanced by Conybeare, but later research by Riggenbach has established the genuineness of the Trinitarian formula in Mt. Feine still maintains his doubts, however, on subjective grounds. As to the concluding section in Mk (16:9-20), Jerome is the first to call attention to its omission in most Greek manuscripts to which he had access. But Jerome himself acknowledged Mk 16:14 as genuine. Gregory of Nyssa reports that, while this section is missing in some manuscripts, in the more accurate ones many manuscripts contain it. No doctrinal scruple can arise on account of this section; for it contains nothing that is contrary to the doctrine of Scripture in other places on the same subject; and it has always been treated as genuine by the Christian church. The question is a purely historical one (see Bengel, Apparatus Criticus, 170 f).

Bible History Online - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

you only proved my quote was accurate, whether the ISBE agrees with the opinnon of modern scholars they refer to is immaterial.

deralter said:
Tom Harpur- The Pagan Christ
From Publishers Weekly
Harpur, a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto, delves into the foundations of the Christian faith, questioning the historicity of the Bible, reinterpreting the familiar stories and restoring what he considers the inner meaning of scriptural texts. "Taken literally, they present a world of abnormal events totally unrelated to people's authentic living today." He documents the many traditions that predate Christianity and parallel the familiar Bible story. He sees Christianity, and the Bible itself, as a rehash of these traditions, merely imitative rather than a record of actual, historical events. He goes so far as to question the existence of the historical Jesus. Harpur believes that the early church establishment, through deliberate acts of suppression and the destruction of books that might challenge the orthodox view (most famously in the Alexandrian Library), shaped a rigid institution unable to cope with an evolving world. He insists that a major change must take place in order for Christianity to survive. His solution is termed "Cosmic Christianity"—a radical reinterpretation not just of the Bible but of the nature of the Christian faith and its links to the world's great spiritual traditions. Harpur's arguments, themselves a rehash of earlier scholarship, are unlikely to convince readers who are not already inclined to his views. (Mar. 27)

Amazon.com: Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures (9781599867458): Alvin Boyd Kuhn: Books

don't think I said anything about tom harpur. maybe a few posts back or someth8ing; But I know what your arguement is, I'm no dummy. Ok here's my reply. ready? here it comes.

say I quote 24 people all saying matthew 28.19 is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill, one of them is an athiest, one is oneness, one is trinitarian, one is jw, 10 are oneness, 10 are trinitarian, etc. And let us also suppose that all 24 are highly qualified students of the bible and Greek new testament. Your singling out one of them as being an athiest to prove that matthew 28.19 is accurate cause the guy is an athiest, is extremely faultly logic, as faulty as saying, oh say that verbs have no subjects. the action of is, etc.

plmarquette · Nov 2, 2009

Water has 3 forms, yet is water...steam, ice, water as are the other 115+ elements on the earth....

Cojoined twins are 2 , yet one ; a pregnant mother with twins is 3 yet one....

3 separate consciousnesses, yet one in purpose, in agreement John 15....

3 players mentioned over and over in gospel, epsitle narrative

3 ministries, expectations, approaches, identities

....no one knows for shure how it all works deut. 29.29 "a mystery"...true , but I have no clue, how it all works" perhaps the most honest answer...

why does it matter.....

the Lord your God is one ?.....break it down in the original language...the Lord (Jehovah singular) your god (elohie-plural) is one...hmmmmmm?

let us, create him, in our language...plural, I believe...

Jpark · Nov 2, 2009

God is the Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:11; Psalm 139:7).

plmarquette · Nov 19, 2009

how much manure do you have to move before you acknowledge that there is
an animal that is producing it....

what do the words mean...the Lord Jehovah ---singular, your God, plural....let us, create man, in our image....plural... that we be in agreement as the father, I and the spirit are ; the baptism of John the father speaking, the son standing in the water, and the spirit descending...3 players...

deuteronomy 29.29 says it is true, how it works eludes me, but it is in God's book, his words, his spirit wrote it...must be true...

whether they are 3 separate entities or 3 facets of the same person is irrelavent...
many a theologian has strived to explain the sacred mysteries....many a non believer has strived to refute...many a hammer has been worn out on God's forge...

believe, that you might understand...

Trinity is wrong.

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

Regular Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency