Trinity is wrong.

[hybrid]

The life of creatures is dependent wholly upon energy ... life as we know it is an irreversible process of the 'degradation' of energy to heat [which then degrades itself as it dissipates to even temperature and becomes useless]

In short the life we know in the flesh is time dependent and time is created ... life is finite in this universe of sentience and depends upon time.

if you think life is governed by the second law of thermodynamics, then life would not evolved at all, because the emergence of biological life in a universe of inanimate matter defies entropy.

We have no understanding of what life without the created, without time and sentience is for the spirit , for God... we cannot impute sentience for a time-less god.

in a single seed, the whole tree, the leaves, the fruits, the chemical process is imputed. it is meaningless to say the god is not sentient and his creatures are. its like saying the one who created the eyes can't see.

in fact it is a property of flesh giving rise to consciousness

this is not a fact. it is only a belief that consciousness is a by product of brain activities. the so called hard problem of consciousness will attest to that.

so not a 'property' of spirit, not a 'property' of God.

in an emergent system, everything is considered the property of the source (spirit).

God is 'being' in a way we know not , without form, without time, without decay, without food, without senses, without thought , without doing... we should really have different words to use for God because our very speech is time-dependent and keyed to things of this world which cannot really apply to God ... God can have no purpose because purpose is in time , God can know the end of time because he is not within time...

yes, but to speak a being without a purpose is nihilistic and fatalistic.
so one should be careful not to mix up the ontology and epistemological aspect of existence when discussing god.

As to our spirit, it would make us love in this world, but the world makes us deny that some of the time... we deny what we are [spirit] by means of our self , thus it is the self that is virtual, transient, in time , not what we are.

Thus the spirit is equally beyond death, it is only the body that is subject to death and the spirit can animate another body in resurrection ...

i think the bible speaks of resurrecting the same self for everyone prior to judgment. virtual self as you want to compare it with the spirit, the bible implies continuity of this personal self.

Equally the spirit cannot be separated from God because it belongs to Him, it cannot be lost as some claim because it has no space or time to be lost in ... our physical reality is thus a virtual reality to the spirit, our flesh is illusory to the spirit because the spirit cannot be flesh , only move flesh , perhaps somewhat like we manipulate dreams or computer characters in virtual reality ...

then there should be no distinction between god's spirit and our spirit. and therefore contradicts what you said earlier that there is no commonality in essence between creator and creature (at least we humans). this commonality as you say is the spirit.

 

[stranger]

if you think life is governed by the second law of thermodynamics, then life would not evolved at all, because the emergence of biological life in a universe of inanimate matter defies entropy.

Well, actually not so, life only reduces entropy in the open system of the living entity , at expense of greater increase in entropy in the environment.

in a single seed, the whole tree, the leaves, the fruits, the chemical process is imputed. it is meaningless to say the god is not sentient and his creatures are. its like saying the one who created the eyes can't see.

It may seem difficult to understand, but that is because most or all of one's experience is of this world , understanding is by making models using what one believes one knows , that may include no knowledge of the spirit and so one does not understand the spirit ,having nothing to understand it by [hence the first commandment of God]
If however one accepts the scriptural notion of a changeless God , consistent with God being creator of space-time, then God is time-less, beyond time , because He created it ... and because , unlike our bodies, He doesn't change , no entropy increase either because there is no time for God ... equally no sentience because sentience is a function of time ...

this is not a fact. it is only a belief that consciousness is a by product of brain activities. the so called hard problem of consciousness will attest to that.

Well, I built a mathematical model of a conscious computer , it exhibited all the limitations of our consciousness , which is rather satisfying , I decided that it was not safe to release the information considering what the military would do with such a device ... anyway I think Rosenthal went some way to debunking the conception of 'qualia' ,e.g. :-
David M. Rosenthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my model qualia reduce to quantitative discriminations, for example there is no qualitative difference between 'red' and 'green' , they are relative in a continuum [similarly as in the electromagnetic spectrum] within the limitations and facilities of the machine ... the machine is allowed 'associations' by which it simulates apparent 'qualia' in the same way as some humans conceive these ... the machine thus resolves the 'hard' problem of consciousness by revealing it to be a conceptual illusion [which it can, but does not need to , mimic]

in an emergent system, everything is considered the property of the source (spirit).

these days I regard the relation between the spirit and (apparent) physical reality as much like the relation between our (apparent) waking and dreaming 'realities' or comparable to the complete difference between the (apparent) realities of a programmer and his virtual reality program ... completely separate kinds of reality with perhaps completely different rules [or indeed some similarities, even possibly homomorphisms] ... the potential problem being that one might try to map one reality onto the other , it may be true or false , but the answer would not necessarily be known in the 'dependent' reality ... or as the bible puts it , in our case, we would get it wrong , thinking of God in physical terms :-

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

So we may well be created in the image of God, spirit then like God, but we cannot map from apparent phenomena onto God, and in your terminology, the emergent system is not a property of the source ... indeed the source is separate[holy!] and distinct qualitatively from the system ...apart from total control [much as we might perhaps control a dream, or a programmer maintain control over a virtual reality] by which even isomorphic models could be embedded in the system [mankind could be given all knowledge of God -John 16:13 - and Jesus the man could 'be' God insofar as any man could]

Rather interestingly perhaps [from point of view of understanding scripture perhaps?] the spiritual [unchanging] relevance of our 'virtual-like' reality appears simply to be to prove its impossibility ... this one can embed that in us as what we would call the reason for mankind as the disproof of not-God, or the 'redemption of Satan' ... Satan as the prodigal son of God as-it-were.

yes, but to speak a being without a purpose is nihilistic and fatalistic.
so one should be careful not to mix up the ontology and epistemological aspect of existence when discussing god.

Rather the terms are inadequate, I have knowledge of formless, timeless existence and it is only nihilistic in the sense of there being no self, no individuality , it is far from 'nothingness' (about as far as one can get from nothingness), and fatalism doesn't apply because there is no 'time' , no irreversibility, no sequence of consciousness' ,no 'sentience'...

i think the bible speaks of resurrecting the same self for everyone prior to judgment. virtual self as you want to compare it with the spirit, the bible implies continuity of this personal self.

Yes,and it is almost trivially easy to duplicate a virtual self in a virtual reality, even in a different virtual reality [as implied by the properties of the new earth]

then there should be no distinction between god's spirit and our spirit. and therefore contradicts what you said earlier that there is no commonality in essence between creator and creature (at least we humans). this commonality as you say is the spirit.

There is no distinction to the spirit , there is an embedded distinction in the virtual self ... even within our limited 'phenomenology' we perceive not only that many of us are selves which maintain stability of the brain by inhibition of input to manageable levels , but that we have the capability of lying to other selves and indeed to our own self , using this inhibitory mechanism ... without the isomorphism [whole truth about the spirit] in spirit baptism [John 16:13] mankind lives a lie about what we are, including the lie of self [personality, individuality] by which we accept the lie of sins being 'attractive' [whereas even in virtual reality sin could be seen to be unnecessarily destructive to life - we could in principal detect a lie within the lie, but most suppress even that]

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause [snaring of Satan] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

It would be 'nice' to have a simpler model, and indeed God guarantees one is forthcoming [Joel 2:28] ,but not 'likely' in this life [about one in 80,000 chance, were it chance , which it isn't] ... for now this one at least seems sufficient to all I know from life ... amusingly one can have no assurance that it is true , but it was fun trying and at least it is possible that it is true [unlike the religious beliefs of continual sinners]

 

[hybrid]

Well, actually not so, life only reduces entropy in the open system of the living entity , at expense of greater increase in entropy in the environment.

i don't know exactly what you mean by an open system of the living entity, but if what it does is life has control of its surrounding environment by storing energy , it is still a feat that defies the downward flow of entropy.

It may seem difficult to understand, but that is because most or all of one's experience is of this world , understanding is by making models using what one believes one knows , that may include no knowledge of the spirit and so one does not understand the spirit ,having nothing to understand it by [hence the first commandment of God]

this can be true if you use the carnal mind to phatom the mysteries of god. but don't forget the half of the story, that this unknowable god had chosen to be known. the spirit seeks its own. it is only by spirit that spirit can be known. it is guaranteed is scriptures that the spirit of christ in us can know the spirit of god. in a blink of an eye or when died and meet him face to face.

If however one accepts the scriptural notion of a changeless God , consistent with God being creator of space-time, then God is time-less, beyond time , because He created it ... and because , unlike our bodies, He doesn't change , no entropy increase either because there is no time for God ... equally no sentience because sentience is a function of time ...

you are talking about the the transcendental aspect of god. the logos became flesh speaks of the other divine aspect of god, his immanence in spacetime.

sentience is not a function of time. sentience in non material, non algorythmic, it is timeless and spaceless. it has no specific location in space as well as time. it is non local. it is indivisible.

Well, I built a mathematical model of a conscious computer , it exhibited all the limitations of our consciousness , which is rather satisfying , I decided that it was not safe to release the information considering what the military would do with such a device ...

this is quite a big claim.

anyway I think Rosenthal went some way to debunking the conception of 'qualia' ,e.g. :-
David M. Rosenthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i see no satisfying argument here that gives solution to the problem of consciousness. rosenthal was more concentrating to the contents of consciousness rather. a different thing.

In my model qualia reduce to quantitative discriminations, for example there is no qualitative difference between 'red' and 'green' , they are relative in a continuum [similarly as in the electromagnetic spectrum] within the limitations and facilities of the machine ... the machine is allowed 'associations' by which it simulates apparent 'qualia' in the same way as some humans conceive these ... the machine thus resolves the 'hard' problem of consciousness by revealing it to be a conceptual illusion [which it can, but does not need to , mimic]

well we might have a not to dissimilar model. but im just a simple guy. my model is simple. two subatomic particle cannot interact without one acknowledging the presence of the other. there must be a rudimentary conciousness present in the interaction. call it what you want, but i think it is implied in your model.

these days I regard the relation between the spirit and (apparent) physical reality as much like the relation between our (apparent) waking and dreaming 'realities' or comparable to the complete difference between the (apparent) realities of a programmer and his virtual reality program ... completely separate kinds of reality with perhaps completely different rules [or indeed some similarities, even possibly homomorphisms] ... the potential problem being that one might try to map one reality onto the other , it may be true or false , but the answer would not necessarily be known in the 'dependent' reality ... or as the bible puts it , in our case, we would get it wrong , thinking of God in physical terms :-

yes there are lot of metaphors to describe the relationship of spirit and matter. but as i assure you as this models implied, the essence and the form is inseparable.

So we may well be created in the image of God, spirit then like God, but we cannot map from apparent phenomena onto God, and in your terminology, the emergent system is not a property of the source ... indeed the source is separate[holy!] and distinct qualitatively from the system ...apart from total control [much as we might perhaps control a dream, or a programmer maintain control over a virtual reality] by which even isomorphic models could be embedded in the system [mankind could be given all knowledge of God -John 16:13 - and Jesus the man could 'be' God insofar as any man could]

my formula for this is what the trinity implied.
the image of god is not the same as god and yet not another. i guess this paradox is what some very logical people in this forum hated.

ill try to answer the rest of your post sometime later.

 

[hybrid]

There is no distinction to the spirit , there is an embedded distinction in the virtual self ... even within our limited 'phenomenology' we perceive not only that many of us are selves which maintain stability of the brain by inhibition of input to manageable levels , but that we have the capability of lying to other selves and indeed to our own self , using this inhibitory mechanism ... without the isomorphism [whole truth about the spirit] in spirit baptism [John 16:13] mankind lives a lie about what we are, including the lie of self [personality, individuality] by which we accept the lie of sins being 'attractive' [whereas even in virtual reality sin could be seen to be unnecessarily destructive to life - we could in principal detect a lie within the lie, but most suppress even that]:

lt reminds me of the words of jesus, .. " if anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself .

It would be 'nice' to have a simpler model, and indeed God guarantees one is forthcoming [Joel 2:28] ,but not 'likely' in this life [about one in 80,000 chance, were it chance , which it isn't] ... for now this one at least seems sufficient to all I know from life ... amusingly one can have no assurance that it is true , but it was fun trying and at least it is possible that it is true [unlike the religious beliefs of continual sinners]

all models are false. this is one of the most common pitfalls in spirituality. by investing too much to the dogmatic aspect of a belief system, one becomes religious without understanding anything about the spirit.

surely david's words .. be still and know god, is not in any way an instruction to conceptual understanding of god.

 

[stranger]

lt reminds me of the words of jesus, .. " if anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself .

all models are false. this is one of the most common 'pitfalls' in 'spirituality'. by investing too much to the dogmatic aspect of a belief system, one becomes religious without understanding the spirit , cos' it is given, not 'deduced'.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

surely david's words .. be still and know god, is not in any way an instruction to conceptual understanding of god.

That's a truth in several ways... one cannot meditate until stopping the 'thought' , the modeling mechanism, stilling the thoughts that the world generates ,moving from an 'illusion' into the unknown , quite bizarre to many people ,so ,as Jesus underlines [Rev 13:3-4] most will stay with the models;
at a deeper level ,one cannot be whole spirit of love and truth without stilling the self... as you noticed, I cannot stop the modelling until I find what's wrong with it , tearing familiar concepts to shards at their limits, and only then do I look to God and say I'm lost 'Dad' , only then do i seem able to listen to what is 'new' to me ,but very old [as in scripture for instance]

So thanks for the reminder! the 'fun' goes ever deeper , 'words' [concepts] torn apart and it all just a show , a smokescreen , cos' God can at any time reveal all truth [and will to all Joel 2:28] and then it will be as it 'was' , our consciousnes and self gone, our concepts and thoughts gone, our imaginings and fears gone... just 'being' unlike anything we think we know now ... no now... have been 'there' where from 'I' was created , there is no form, no time, no insecurity, no uncertainty, no individual, no self, no personality... I have known 'bliss' in the body too , for three whole days the world was perfect, every detail, every scrap of dust and debris, every person, but the spirit is beyond bliss too, I cannot find any words for what it is, only what it is not , 'YHWH' seems the best name , being (unlimited by, without, time or space) [Just as Jesus told us what love is not , not what love is , cos' he couldn't , and showed us what it looks like , but also said that we cannot follow him until it is time to know all things ... that part gets left out of religion for very important reasons! ]

 

[gort]

2dl quotes:

All my explanations, which you call non sequiter show how your interpretation cannot be correct. Your only response is to ignore it.

All your explanations dance around the subject of the pre-existence of Jesus. YOu are the one who is ignoring the obvious implications that Jesus is saying when He shared glory with the Father before the world was. Even if you want to interpret kosmos as world system, you still fail as it still shows a pre-existent Jesus as a sentient being. ANd Jesus being the Word of God, along with sentience, we know that the WOrd of God is eternal, the WOrd is God.

I see no need to go further with you if you can't admit Jesus was a sentient being prior to his incarnation. ANd when you do, you'll have no recourse but to see that Jesus, the Logos, was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.

 

[2ducklow]

All your explanations dance around the subject of the pre-existence of Jesus. YOu are the one who is ignoring the obvious implications that Jesus is saying when He shared glory with the Father before the world was. Even if you want to interpret kosmos as world system, you still fail as it still shows a pre-existent Jesus as a sentient being. ANd Jesus being the Word of God, along with sentience, we know that the WOrd of God is eternal, the WOrd is God.

I see no need to go further with you if you can't admit Jesus was a sentient being prior to his incarnation. ANd when you do, you'll have no recourse but to see that Jesus, the Logos, was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.

You say John 17:5 says Jesus and god shared glory before the world was, john 17.5 has Jesus asking to be glorified with god's own self. Your other problem is you ignore john 17.22 which specifically states that the glory that was given to Jesus he gave it to us. so there is no shared glory and we don't share glory with god, we have the same glory that Jesus has, bein g glorified with god's own self. until yu can face these scriotpures you will continue to be mired in this false preexistant docttrine of yours.


John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self (no shared glory here, shared glory is just something you invented) with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus gave that glory he asked for to us so jesus was not asking for a glory shared with god as you change it to. I don't dance areound the scriptures, you change um and ignore the ones you doon't like.\

so continue to pretend like john 17.22 doesn't exist gort so you can continue with your false shard glory doctrine that has no foundation in scripture.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


shared glory is a gort invention. not scripture.

 

[stranger]

Your problem is that you are incapable of reading what it says. It does not say that Jesus shared glory with the Father, it says he was glorified with God's own self. ...
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

since Jesus is claiming to be glorified with god's own self, he cannot be god. and if you interpret john 17.5 to mean that Jesus existed before the world began, then he existed as something other than god...

God is spirit , not sentient in itself, nothing that is God is not spirit ... the spirit interfaces sentience through Jesus' body ... the spirit baptism of Jesus thus changed nothing, it was just a demo for the disciples as sinners giving up sin ... Jesus had none to give up ...

 

[Dubious Peace]

Well, actually not so, life only reduces entropy in the open system of the living entity , at expense of greater increase in entropy in the environment.

Are you kidding me? What universal entropy? Where? Is man not made in the image of the Creator? Then quit saying the universe is random and find its lawfulness.

Fact: Johannes Kepler discovered gravity in his Harmonies of the Worlds. There is music even unto the stars. The universe is negentropic.

Take Newton, from whose mathematical formulations of Kepler's work the notions of Entropy were manifested: Even he said that despite his formulas that make the universe appear as a clock winding down, readers should not take that to be true of reality.

And the whole thing goes against the Book of Genesis. The universe is creation, and that you have not seen all its order is no grounds to deny this order. Man is not omnipotent- that spot is left for God alone.

The solar system can be made a single thought, just as the planet Earth, and though I have not done it for the Milky Way, it will surely prove so- and so on and so on, for eternal genesis.

 

[Godfixated]

You are correct.. no where in the bible is there a word "trinity".. although all throughout the bible, scripture reveals God to be 3 and 1.

The bible refers the Father as God, Jesus to be God, and the Holy Spirit to be God, all in separate passages.

There are also many scriptures which speak of God as 3..
As we look to the old Testament, God refers to Himself as an "Us"..

Gen 1:26 - Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.."


Gen 3:22 -Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us...


Is 6:8 -Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”





Some scripture references to look at..

Matt 28:19 - Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Matt 3:13-17

John 14:15-23
Acts 2:32-33
2 Cor 13:14 -The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Eph 1:1-14
Eph 3:14-19
1 Pet 1:2

These scriptures reveal God to be 3 as distinct but also 1...

Just some things to think about

You prove absolutely nothing. The record in Matthew 28:19 did not appear in any Greek texts before the 16th century. Plus, where in the Word is someone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. Never. There have been many records of people being baptized and every time they are baptized, they are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only. Either all of those verses are wrong or part of Matthew 28:19 was added.

Matthew 3:13-17, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Now, where is any support that Jesus is God in this passage?

Acts 2:32-33, "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Again, I fail to see how this Jesus to be God or a trinity. The holy ghost or holy spirit in this passage is referring to the holy spirit manifested through Speaking in Tongues at Pentecost when the Apostles were born again. It does not refer to the third person of the trinity. All you have to do is read the context and you can figure it out.

This is just 3 of the passages you mentioned and I could talk about them all but in respect of time and the tendency not wanting to read long posts I kept short.

 

[Der Alte]

You prove absolutely nothing. The record in Matthew 28:19 did not appear in any Greek texts before the 16th century. Plus, where in the Word is someone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. Never. There have been many records of people being baptized and every time they are baptized, they are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only. Either all of those verses are wrong or part of Matthew 28:19 was added.[ . . . ]

You have your facts extremely confused. First, there is NO, ZERO, NONE vs. in the entire NT which describes a baptism where the candidate, enters the water, he/she is baptized and the one performing the baptism says the words, "In the name of Jesus. . .", and they both exit the water. The five examples in the N.T.where the words "In the name of . . ." occur are either commands to be baptized or references to baptism which had occurred, NOT descriptions of a baptism. The only two baptisms which are actually described are Jesus and the Ethiopian. In neither one are the words "In the name of . . ." spoken. Since according to anti-Trinitarians those word are essential, Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian is not valid because he did NOT say the words "In the name of Jesus. . ."

Second, There are arguments that one verse did not appear in any "Greek" manuscript until the 15th century but that vs. is NOT Matt 28:19. Fact: There is no manuscript which includes Matt 28:19 which does not include the Triune formula! The oldest manuscript which does include the Triune formula is dated in the 4th century. There are older mss. including Matthew but the entire end of the book is missing. But, that is not the result of any "conspiracy," scrolls were rolled up, the end would be on the outside, more susceptible to damage from fire, water, insects, rodents, etc.

Here is evidence dating back to the 1st century that Matt 28:19 included the triune formula.

To verify citations, [ECF Link]

1. Ignatius – The Epistle to the Philadelphians [30-107 a.d.], [a disciple of John.] [218 + years before Nicaea]

Chapter IX.-The Old Testament is Good: the New Testament is Better

"Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company [of others] that have believed through them: only if we love one another.

2. Irenaeus – Against Heresies Book III [a.d. 120-202.], [a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.] [123 + years before Nicaea]

That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."308 And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God,309 He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "

3. Justin – 1st Apology Chapter LXI.-Christian Baptism. [110-165 a.d. ][ca. 175 years before Nicaea]

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. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.127

4. Tertullian – The Prescription Against Heretics.1 [a.d. 145-220] [105 + years before Nicaea]

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost." 203

4a. Tertullian – On Baptism. [105 + years before Nicaea]

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. "

5. The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus. – Part II. – Dogmatical and Historical. (c.170-c.236). [89 + years before Nicaea]

The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "265 And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.

6. Cyprian – Treatise XII.1 – Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. [c.200-258][67 + years before Nicaea]

And He laid His right hand upon me, and said, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and He that liveth and was dead; and, lo, I am living for evermore289 and I have the keys of death and of hell."290 Likewise in the Gospel, the Lord after His resurrection says to His disciples: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

7. Origen – de Principiis Book I [c.185-c.254] [71+ years before Nicaea]

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.

8. The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. –
Chapter VII. – Concerning Baptism. [120 AD][205 years before Nicaea]

1. And concerning baptism,73 thus baptize ye:74 Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,75 in living water.76 2. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou3canst not in cold, in warm. 3. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice77 upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the 4 baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

9. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles – Book II. Of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. [Late 2d to early 3d century] [100 + years before Nicaea]

Let the presbyters be esteemed by you to represent us the apostles, and let them be the teachers of divine knowledge; since our Lord, when He sent us, said, "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

10. Life and Conduct of the Holy Women Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca [mid 3d century] [75 years before Nicaea]

XIV. Therefore the great Paul straightway taking her hand, went into the house of Philotheus, and baptised her in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost.

11. Tatian – The Diatessaron [ca. 175] [150 years before Nicaea]

Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven 5 and earth; and as my Father hath sent me, so I also send you. Go now into [sup]6[/sup] all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and 7 baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto 8 the end of the world.

At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256 [69 years before Nicaea], a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris said, "We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel demons.' And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Vincentius' second quotation is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect the first quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands, expelling demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15- 18, especially when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew

Seventh Council of Carthage - Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics. 256 a.d. [69 years before Nicaea]

12. Lucius of Castra Galbae said: Since the Lord in His Gospel said, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt should have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out of doors, and to be trodden under foot of men." And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

13. Munnulus of Girba said: The truth of our Mother6 the Catholic Church, brethren, hath always remained and still remains with us, and even especially in the Trinity of baptism, as our Lord says, "Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. "

14. Euchratius of Thenae said: God and our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

15. Vincentius of Thibaris said: We know that heretics are worse than Gentiles. If, therefore, being converted, they should wish to come to the Lord, we have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, "Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons." And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."​

 

[2ducklow]

You have your facts extremely confused. First, there is NO, ZERO, NONE vs. in the entire NT which describes a baptism where the candidate, enters the water, he/she is baptized and the one performing the baptism says the words, "In the name of Jesus. . .", and they both exit the water. The five examples in the N.T.where the words "In the name of . . ." occur are either commands to be baptized or references to baptism which had occurred, NOT descriptions of a baptism. The only two baptisms which are actually described are Jesus and the Ethiopian. In neither one are the words "In the name of . . ." spoken. Since according to anti-Trinitarians those word are essential, Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian is not valid because he did NOT say the words "In the name of Jesus. . ."

Second, There are arguments that one verse did not appear in any "Greek" manuscript until the 15th century but that vs. is NOT Matt 28:19. Fact: There is no manuscript which includes Matt 28:19 which does not include the Triune formula! The oldest manuscript which does include the Triune formula is dated in the 4th century. There are older mss. including Matthew but the entire end of the book is missing. But, that is not the result of any "conspiracy," scrolls were rolled up, the end would be on the outside, more susceptible to damage from fire, water, insects, rodents, etc.

funny how rodents only had a taste for the end of the book of matthew and only prior to the council of nicea.
guess after the council of nicea all rodents had their fill of the end of matthew schrolls.

here's some good stuff.

. A 'quiet North Syrian town' is Krister Stendahl's characterization of Matthew's location. Matthew omits much of Mark's baptismal materials (Cp. Matt 20.22-23, 'cup' only, to Mark 10.38-39, 'cup' and 'baptism'). Our current form of Matt 28.19: baptize in Triune Name, was probably added at Antioch where they had had a baptismal controversy; Matt 28.19, as given by Eusebius in his pre-Nicene writings is the original: 'Go make disciples out of all nations in my name, teaching them to hold fast to all that I have taught you'; after Nicaea (i.e.

post 325 CE), Eusebius then quotes the usual form. [My guess is the other bishops told him to toe the line, and he, being a compromising semi-Arian, did so.]

Matthew: Introductory Notes
His guesses are more probable than your rat guesses, IME. speaking of which, here's what the pope says about trinity.

he Cathecism of the Catholic Church admits the Church (not the Bible) had to come up with terms of "philosophical" (pagan/Greek) origin to explain it::

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance," "person," or "hypostasis," "relation" and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 74).
​

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...t+of+Matthew+28:19:&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
​

more good stuff.

"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) 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 (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention… Very few know about these historical facts. (A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19; Clinton D. Willis, http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/ matt2819-willis.htm). Quoted from: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-53.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...istianity,+pp.50-53.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Hey even the pope says matthew 28.19 is a fake.

hey you can buy it here.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Christianity-Joseph-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/0898703166
​

 

[Godfixated]

You have your facts extremely confused. First, there is NO, ZERO, NONE vs. in the entire NT which describes a baptism where the candidate, enters the water, he/she is baptized and the one performing the baptism says the words, "In the name of Jesus. . .", and they both exit the water. The five examples in the N.T.where the words "In the name of . . ." occur are either commands to be baptized or references to baptism which had occurred, NOT descriptions of a baptism. The only two baptisms which are actually described are Jesus and the Ethiopian. In neither one are the words "In the name of . . ." spoken. Since according to anti-Trinitarians those word are essential, Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian is not valid because he did NOT say the words "In the name of Jesus. . ."

Second, There are arguments that one verse did not appear in any "Greek" manuscript until the 15th century but that vs. is NOT Matt 28:19. Fact: There is no manuscript which includes Matt 28:19 which does not include the Triune formula! The oldest manuscript which does include the Triune formula is dated in the 4th century. There are older mss. including Matthew but the entire end of the book is missing. But, that is not the result of any "conspiracy," scrolls were rolled up, the end would be on the outside, more susceptible to damage from fire, water, insects, rodents, etc.

I was talking about baptism of holy spirit, not baptism of water and so was Jesus Christ. Acts 1:5, "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Baptism of holy spirit is what has come after Jesus' death and resurrection. Baptism with water is only symbollic and is not required. Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Peter is talking about baptism of holy spirit here. Acts 8:12 is even more clear, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."

Plus, in Acts 18:25-28, Apollos had to be taught about God more perfectly because he only knew the baptism of John. I see you brought a lot of quotes from church fathers. The problem with those quotes is that the trinity did not come about before the 4th century. While many of the church fathers, such as Tertullian, did believe that Jesus was God, he could not have believed in the trinity because even the Council of Nicea did not claim the trinity but only that Jesus is God. It wasn't till after the Council that the idea of the trinity was fully realized.

 

[2ducklow]

I was talking about baptism of holy spirit, not baptism of water and so was Jesus Christ. Acts 1:5, "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Baptism of holy spirit is what has come after Jesus' death and resurrection. Baptism with water is only symbollic and is not required. Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Peter is talking about baptism of holy spirit here. Acts 8:12 is even more clear, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."

Plus, in Acts 18:25-28, Apollos had to be taught about God more perfectly because he only knew the baptism of John. I see you brought a lot of quotes from church fathers. The problem with those quotes is that the trinity did not come about before the 4th century. While many of the church fathers, such as Tertullian, did believe that Jesus was God, he could not have believed in the trinity because even the Council of Nicea did not claim the trinity but only that Jesus is God. It wasn't till after the Council that the idea of the trinity was fully realized.

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.

 

[freeport]

Part 1.

1st Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints.

Athanasian Creed, The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.”

Against Praxeas 9 [A.D. 216], Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable from each other.”

Against Praxeas 25 [A.D. 216], These three [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] are, one essence, not one person.”

Dogmatic Letter on the Trinity 8:2 [A.D. 381], To those who accuse us of a doctrine of three Gods, let it be stated that we confess one God, not in number but in nature.”

Question; Is the Father 33.3% [1/3] or is he 100% [3/3]? And is the Son 33.3% [1/3] or is he 100% [3/3]? And is the Holy Spirit 33.3% [1/3] or is he 100% [3/3]? We cannot have three parts who are all 100% since we come up to 300%.”

Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225], God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind.”

Treasury of the holy Trinity 11 [A.D. 424], The nature of the Godhead, which is simple and not composite, is never to be divided into two.”

Question; How do you have three in one?”

The Trinity doctrine is very confusing, for it states that three are one and one is three and yet one is not three and three is not one”.

To force a choice upon us between accepting Yehoshua HaMoshiach [ben David] as a lunatic, liar, or the Eternal God himself cleverly diverts us from the truth about his real identity.

If God alone is good, how then can you call yourself "good", unless you are born of God?

If your words and deeds proceed from your own intellect and not the intellect of God, from your own heart and not the heart of God... then how can you say you have "good" words and deeds?

God alone is good.

Now is Jesus good or bad? One or the other.

We believe Jesus is good, and therefore of God, from God, in fact, God incarnate.

There is more to God then Jesus, but Jesus is from God and was God and is God incarnate.


Also, Scripture plainly calls those 'through whom the word of God came', "God" when it calls them "gods", for "Hear O Israel, there is no God but God". This is because they are Children of God.


Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is thinking one is able to produce "good" deeds and words and have a "good" heart without the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of God.

 

[Der Alte]

funny how rodents only had a taste for the end of the book of matthew and only prior to the council of nicea.
guess after the council of nicea all rodents had their fill of the end of matthew schrolls.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with historical facts. Matthew is not the only scroll which was ever damaged. Were you to actually read historical evidence about this subject you would find that many, many ancient manuscripts were damaged by water/moisture, fire, rodents, insects, etc. Funny how you are so accustomed to automatic objections that what I actually said escaped you.

Scrolls were rolled up, the end of a scroll would be on the outside. The water, fire, rodents, insects, etc. could not unroll scrolls in order to damage the inside, and leave the outside undamaged. The same would be true for codexes. Scrolls that were cut up and sewn together, on the left side, to make the first "books." Again anything which would damage a scroll or codex would damage the outside first. That falls under the heading of common sense. All one has to do is look at any book that has been damaged, the heaviest damage is to the outside pages. I have more evidence on the damage to ancinet manuscripts, if you are interested.

Over the centuries, the manuscripts have been susceptible to termites, humidity, fire and flood damage. Many of the ancient documents have been irreparably damaged, lost or stolen.

http://www.fordfound.org/newsroom/pressreleases/254

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (or CSNTM) is the institute responsible for photographing these manuscripts. This summer alone we have taken more than 30,000 pictures of manuscripts. We discovered over a dozen manuscripts, too. CSNTM was founded six years ago. Since its inception the Center’s staff have discovered more NT manuscripts than the rest of the world combined has—by a factor of four or five! I am convinced that the Lord is far more interested in scripture than we are and he has been opening doors for us to image these ancient, precious texts, and thus preserve them digitally for generations to come. With wars, fire, theft, water and rodent damage, these ancient copies of the NT are not as stable as we would like. There are a dozen such manuscripts in Georgia which we hope to photograph after the war is actually over.

http://www.koinoniablog.net/2008/08/digitally-prese.html

The meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls: their significance for understanding ...
By James C. VanderKam, Peter Flint

Damage and Deterioration
Unfortunately, the scrolls have suffered much damage over the years, which has affected their color and appearance. This deterioration began long before their discovery in modern times. Although a few manuscripts were found wrapped in linen cloths in jars, many were stored in niches in cave walls, and many others lay buried in dust on cave floors. Due to the elements, rats, insects, and molds, as well as the activities of early human intruders, the great majority of these ancient manuscripts are badly damaged and some have almost completely disintegrated.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SB...ge&q=damage%20ancient manuscripts&f=false​

here's some good stuff.
A 'quiet North Syrian town' is Krister Stendahl's characterization of Matthew's location. Matthew omits much of Mark's baptismal materials (Cp. Matt 20.22-23, 'cup' only, to Mark 10.38-39, 'cup' and 'baptism'). Our current form of Matt 28.19: baptize in Triune Name, was probably added at Antioch where they had had a baptismal controversy; Matt 28.19, as given by Eusebius in his pre-Nicene writings is the original: 'Go make disciples out of all nations in my name, teaching them to hold fast to all that I have taught you'; after Nicaea (i.e.

post 325 CE), Eusebius then quotes the usual form. [My guess is the other bishops told him to toe the line, and he, being a compromising semi-Arian, did so.]

Matthew: Introductory Notes
His guesses are more probable than your rat guesses, IME.

I see absolutely NO, ZERO, NONE "good stuff," or credible, verifiable, historical evidence. One "probably" and two "guesses." Since Stendahl obviously was not there, how does he know, "Matt 28.19, as given by Eusebius in his pre-Nicene writings is the original:?" The historical evidence show that Eusebius was an Arian and was excommunicated in 312 for his heretical views, but was reinstated by Constantine, who was also an Arian, shortly before Nicaea. That alone is a good reason he often did not quote the Triune formula.

If Eusebius, who very likely was persecuted along with all other Christians before Constantine halted the persecution, was forced to "toe the line" after Nicaea that makes him a liar and a coward, therefore nothing he wrote is reliable.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ] I see you brought a lot of quotes from church fathers. The problem with those quotes is that the trinity did not come about before the 4th century. While many of the church fathers, such as Tertullian, did believe that Jesus was God, he could not have believed in the trinity because even the Council of Nicea did not claim the trinity but only that Jesus is God. It wasn't till after the Council that the idea of the trinity was fully realized.

The problem with all your posts, so far, is you make a lot of assertions but you do not provide any evidence. Were you to actually read Tertullian you would find that he used the word "Trinity" many times, as did Origen, and other ECF long before Nicaea. I provided a link in my previous post. May I suggest you actually read the ECF before declaring what they did/did not believe or say?

 

[2ducklow]

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with historical facts. Matthew is not the only scroll which was ever damaged. Were you to actually read historical evidence about this subject you would find that many, many ancient manuscripts were damaged by water/moisture, fire, rodents, insects, etc. Funny how you are so accustomed to automatic objections that what I actually said escaped you.

Scrolls were rolled up, the end of a scroll would be on the outside. The water, fire, rodents, insects, etc. could not unroll scrolls in order to damage the inside, and leave the outside undamaged. The same would be true for codexes. Scrolls that were cut up and sewn together, on the left side, to make the first "books." Again anything which would damage a scroll or codex would damage the outside first. That falls under the heading of common sense. All one has to do is look at any book that has been damaged, the heaviest damage is to the outside pages.

I still think rats are far less probable than that a conspiracy existed to insert the triune formula in the end of matthew given the fact that the triune formula only exists after the council of nicea in greek namuscirpts. especially since matthews twin cousin, 1 john 5.7 is overwhelmingly a fake. constantine put the triune formula in the bible at the council of nicea. that's obvious.

I see absolutely NO, ZERO, NONE "good stuff," or credible, verifiable, historical evidence. One "probably" and two "guesses." Since Stendahl obviously was not there, how does he know,

how do you know rats ate the end of matthew 28.19? so you can guess but nobody else can right?

"Matt 28.19, as given by Eusebius in his pre-Nicene writings is the original:?" The historical evidence show that Eusebius was an Arian and was excommunicated in 312 for his heretical views, but was reinstated by Constantine, who was also an Arian, shortly before Nicaea. That alone is a good reason he often did not quote the Triune formula.

well it's just your guess, my guess is he got threatened by constantine, which is why he quoted the triune formula only after the council of nicea. besides your facts are in error, eusebius wasn't a full blown arian, he just had arian leanings.

If Eusebius, who very likely was persecuted along with all other Christians before Constantine halted the persecution, was forced to "toe the line" after Nicaea that makes him a liar and a coward, therefore nothing he wrote is reliable.

so if you der alter ever told a lie in your life we would have to not believe anything you write in here right?


hey you missed the part about the pope saying matthew 28.19 is a fake.

more good stuff.

"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) 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 (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention… Very few know about these historical facts. (A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19; Clinton D. Willis, http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/ matt2819-willis.htm). Quoted from: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-53.
​

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Hey even the pope says matthew 28.19 is a fake. imagine that, i'm agreeing with the pope here. wonders never cease.

hey you can buy it here.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-C.../dp/0898703166
sio buy the book and post pages 50-51 for us, it's only $ 8.95.
​

 

[Der Alte]

I still think rats are far less probable than that a conspiracy existed to insert the triune formula in the end of matthew given the fact that the triune formula only exists after the council of nicea in greek namuscirpts. especially since matthews twin cousin, 1 john 5.7 is overwhelmingly a fake. constantine put the triune formula in the bible at the council of nicea. that's obvious.

I do NOT say rats ate the end of anything. I named four possible sources of damage; water/moisture, rodents, insects, and fire, and have since supported that with evidence. You OTOH have NEVER provided any credible evidence for any of your arguments and certainly none for any conspiracy theory.

Both Constantine and Eusebius were Arians. Constantine if anything would have forced Arianism on the church, not a Trinity, but there is no evidence that he did either..

how do you know rats ate the end of matthew 28.19? so you can guess but nobody else can right?

I have found that it is very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond. See above.

well it's just your guess, my guess is he got threatened by constantine, which is why he quoted the triune formula only after the council of nicea. besides your facts are in error, eusebius wasn't a full blown arian, he just had arian leanings.

Please post your so-called evidence for Eusebius being semi-Arian I will be more than glad to blow it away from multiple sources.

hey you missed the part about the pope saying matthew 28.19 is a fake.

cache:... - Google Search

Hey even the pope says matthew 28.19 is a fake. imagine that, i'm agreeing with the pope here. wonders never cease.

hey you can buy it here.
Amazon.com: Introduction to Christianity (9780898703160): Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, J.R. Foster: Books
sio buy the book and post pages 50-51 for us, it's only $ 8.95.

I missed nothing. But you have proven once again that anti-Trinitarians will believe anything, written by anybody, any where as long as it attacks the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. I think I have addressed this blatantly false accusation from you before. But here for all the hangers on who believe garbage like this, with a link to the actual page from the book.

You copy/pasted that misrepresented quotation from one of a number of God hating websites. As they present his quote, it reads:

"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) 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 (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."​

However, what does the actual text say from his book? Here is the 2004 reprint of the book online for anyone to view.

Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks come at the start of a chapter subtitled: Introductory Remarks on the History and Structure of the Apostles' Creed. He is discussing the Apostles' Creed, not the text of Matthew 28:19.

Now here is the actual quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

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."​

The words in parentheses, (Matthew 28:19), which I highlighted in red from your quote are not in the text. The "text" Ratzinger is referring to is the text of the Creed, not the text of Matthew 28:19. And as you can see, he goes on to quote Matthew 28:19 a few verses later the same way Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian did. Cardinal Ratzinger certainly did not say, "The text of Matt 28:19, was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19."

To make it a little clearer.

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 basic form of our profession of faith [the creed, NOT Matt 28:19, is recited as a 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 [the Apostle's creed] place of origin is concerned, the text [of the Apostle's creed] comes from the city of Rome; but its [the Apostle's creed] internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This [the text of the Apostle's creed] 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."​

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

 

[2ducklow]

I do NOT say rats ate the end of anything. I named four possible sources of damage; water/moisture, rodents, insects, and fire, and have since supported that with evidence.

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.
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.

You OTOH have NEVER provided any credible evidence for any of your arguments and certainly none for any conspiracy theory.

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

Both Constantine and Eusebius were Arians. Constantine if anything would have forced Arianism on the church, not a Trinity, but there is no evidence that he did either..

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

I have found that it is very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond. See above.


Please post your so-called evidence for Eusebius being semi-Arian I will be more than glad to blow it away from multiple sources.

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.

I missed nothing. But you have proven once again that anti-Trinitarians will believe anything, written by anybody, any where as long as it attacks the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. I think I have addressed this blatantly false accusation from you before. But here for all the hangers on who believe garbage like this, with a link to the actual page from the book.

You copy/pasted that misrepresented quotation from one of a number of God hating websites. As they present his quote, it reads:

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.

"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) 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 (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."
​

However, what does the actual text say from his book? Here is the 2004 reprint of the book online for anyone to view.

Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks come at the start of a chapter subtitled: Introductory Remarks on the History and Structure of the Apostles' Creed. He is discussing the Apostles' Creed, not the text of Matthew 28:19.

Now here is the actual quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

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."
​

The words in parentheses, (Matthew 28:19), which I highlighted in red from your quote are not in the text. The "text" Ratzinger is referring to is the text of the Creed, not the text of Matthew 28:19. And as you can see, he goes on to quote Matthew 28:19 a few verses later the same way Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian did. Cardinal Ratzinger certainly did not say, "The text of Matt 28:19, was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19."

To make it a little clearer.

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 basic form of our profession of faith [the creed, NOT Matt 28:19, is recited as a 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 [the Apostle's creed] place of origin is concerned, the text [of the Apostle's creed] comes from the city of Rome; but its [the Apostle's creed] internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This [the text of the Apostle's creed] 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."
​

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

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?

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.