Christ is God

[trofimus]

I did answer. Paul knew these men were not baptized in NAME of YESHUA because they did not know of or have the Holy Spirit. so he asked. and knowing the intelligence of Paul, he knew they were baptized by John.

but verse 5 proves that Paul baptized people in NAME of YESHUA, so he would not have ever thought of the trinity way, since that doesn't happen for another 200 years!!

You believe that the RCC changed the Bible? If so, why are you even using it or discussing it?

 

[GodisONE]

2 He said unto them*, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him*, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


these verses definitely prove how Paul and along with Acts 2:38 (Peter/Disciples) were actually baptizing.

and knowing these verses makes it clear that Matthew 28:19 has been tampered by the Catholics in our Bibles.

God said, do not add to His Holy Word and the Catholics did.

I would not want to be them on judgement day for fooling millions of people in believing the trinity!!

wow, all those poor spouls who believed this LIE!!

God help them!!

 

[trofimus]

... he would not have ever thought of the trinity way, since that doesn't happen for another 200 years!!

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this way: After you have spoken all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water."
Didache (before 100 AD)

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water"
Justin Martyr (100-165)

 

[GodisONE]

You believe that the RCC changed the Bible? If so, why are you even using it or discussing it?

The RCC is the Nicene Council who chose the Books of the Bible.
just imagine the ones they threw out. they must had so much information. but if the RCC wanted trinity, they definitely would destroy anything proving ONENESS!!

 

[GodisONE]

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water."
Didache (before 100 AD)

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water"
Justin Martyr (100-165)

that is cool, but in 35 A.D. we know the DISCIPLES and PAUL BAPTIZED IN NAME of YESHUA, not the trinity!!

which is more important here, what Paul and Disciples did, or what happened hundreds of years later?

 

[trofimus]

The RCC is the Nicen Council who chose the Books of the Bible.
just imagine the ones they through out. they must had so much information. but if the RCC wanted trinity, they definitely would destroy anything proving ONENESS!!

So are you trusting the gospel of Matthew or not?

 

[trofimus]

that is cool but in 35 A.D. we know the DISCIPLES and PAUL BAPTIZED IN NAME of YESHUA, not the trinity!!

which is more important here, what Paul and Disciples did, or what happened hundreds of years later?

You are:
a) throwing out the gospel of Matthew and basing your faith only on your interpretation of Acts
b) giving wrong information that the baptism with Trinity was 200 years later, we have the oldest quotations from like 50 years later.

 

[Noose]

2 He said unto them*, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him*, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


these verses definitely prove how Paul and along with Acts 2:38 (Peter/Disciples) were actually baptizing.

and knowing these verses makes it clear that Matthew 28:19 has been tampered by the Catholics in our Bibles.

God said, do not add to His Holy Word and the Catholics did.

I would not want to be them on judgement day for fooling millions of people in believing the trinity!!

wow, all those poor spouls who believed this LIE!!

God help them!!

I don't believe the bible was changed by anyone, it;s just the understanding that fails. The Father/Son/Holy spirit are one and the same as Jesus. All deity dwells in Jesus- He is the Father and He is the son and He is the Holy spirit. Don't confuse, Jesus is the one and only Almighty God. He came to demonstrate sonship to us, an authority that He relinquished to us as He took the higher authority of our Father in heaven.

 

[GodisONE]

that is cool, but in 35 A.D. we know the DISCIPLES and PAUL BAPTIZED IN NAME of YESHUA, not the trinity!!

which is more important here, what Paul and Disciples did, or what happened hundreds of years later?

Read Book of ACTS
this is the first church
AND WE KNOW THE FIRST CHURCH BAPTIZED IN NAME of YESHUA, not the trinity!!

I want to follow the Disciples and Paul, BECAUSE they only did what GOD TOLD THEM TO DO!!

 

[GodisONE]

do you believe the Disciples and Paul would do what Yeshua instructed them to do, or to do what they wanted to do?

I feel they followed the command of Yeshua, which is baptize in NAME of YESHUA like we see Paul baptizing in verse 5!!

why would Paul DISOBEY YESHUA?

he would not!!

 

[Noose]

You are:
a) throwing out the gospel of Matthew and basing your faith only on your interpretation of Acts
b) giving wrong information that the baptism with Trinity was 200 years later, we have the oldest quotations from like 50 years later.

Why do you put scriptures aside and go for an interpretation by someone else who was not appointed by God? I told you, trinity is a 2000 year old(still counting) misunderstanding. Trinity believers would gather and burn anyone with an opposing view - doesn't really sound like Godly people.

 

[trofimus]

Why do you put scriptures aside and go for an interpretation by someone else who was not appointed by God? I told you, trinity is 2000 year (still counting) misunderstanding. Trinity believers would gather and burn anyone with an opposing view - doesn't really sound like Godly people.

You are the one appointed by God to teach us? ;-)

I am a Trinity believer and I would not burn anybody.

 

[GodisONE]

what the Disciples do is a reflection of what they were taught by Yeshua. and Paul would do what the Disciples were taught. so, if they were baptizing in NAME of YESHUA in verse 5 around 35 A.D., why would we not follow their example?

clearly they are doing what they were taught by Yeshua, which clearly proves Matthew 28:19 originally states to baptize in Yeshua's NAME ONLY, not the trinity!!

so, who do you follow [the RCC who created the trinity/changed the original Matthew 28:19] or what we see Paul doing in verse 5 [baptizing in NAME of YESHUA]?

 

[trofimus]

what Disciples do is a reflection of what they were taught by Yeshua. and Paul would do what the Disciples were taught. so, if they were baptizing in NAME of YESHUA in verse 5 around 35 A.D., why would we not follow their example?

clearly they are doing what they were taught by Yeshua, which clearly proves Matthew 28:19 originally states to baptize in Yeshua's NAME ONLY, not the trinity!!

so, who do you follow [the RCC who created the trinity] or what we see Paul doing in verse 5 [baptizing in NAME of YESHUA?

Trinity is much older than the RCC. Your arguments do not hold water. There is no evidence that Matthew 28:19 is not original.

Extrabiblical sources of the Church also witness that the Trinitarian formula was in use or at least that the Trinity was acknowledged.

 

[Noose]

You are the one appointed by God to teach us? ;-)

I am a Trinity believer and I would not burn anybody.

There are no appointments nowadays, i'm just a poor soul insisting on knowing the truth.
You can not burn anyone, it's against the law of many countries but back then when the church joined hands with the state, it was unlawful to go against the trinity doctrine. Clearly shows its origin.
And being a poor soul that inquires, i still wonder, why would anyone insist that the Father is not the Holy spirit and that the Holy spit is not the son? i do understand that some scriptures shows distinction but i would not insist that they are distinct because the overall understanding is that they are authorities of God.

 

[GodisONE]

Trinity is much older than the RCC. Your arguments do not hold water. There is no evidence that Matthew 28:19 is not original.

Extrabiblical sources of the Church also witness that the Trinitarian formula was in use or at least that the Trinity was acknowledged.

well Paul baptizing in NAME of YESHUA is clearly older than the trinity!! because Paul is baptizing in first established church...which is OUR EXAMPLE!!

so clearly, the ONENESS BAPTISM is older than the trinity baptism!!

 

[trofimus]

i still wonder, why would anyone insist that the Father is not the Holy spirit and that the Holy spit is not the son? i do understand that some scriptures shows distinction but i would not insist that they are distinct because the overall understanding is that they are authorities of God.

Because they are talking to each other, sending each other, praying to each other, sitting beside each other on the throne etc.

Son is begotten by the Father -> logically, Father is not the Son.

Etc.

 

[trofimus]

well Paul baptizing in NAME of YESHUA is clearly older than the trinity!! because Paul is baptizing in first established church...which is OUR EXAMPLE!!

so clearly, the ONENESS BAPTISM is older than the trinity baptism!!

With your logic, Jesus and his command to baptise in the name of Trinity are older than the writings of Luke, who calls the baptism just by the name of Jesus.

 

[GodisONE]

Because they are talking to each other, sending each other, praying to each other, sitting beside each other on the throne etc.

Son is begotten by the Father -> logically, Father is not the Son.

Etc.

you mean, Showing us how to pray [because nowhere does it show when Yeshua prayed the Father answered Him]...

and the right hand means power, not literally at right side!!

Father makes His own spoken WORD flesh [which is extension of Himself] is the Same Person!! (be like you making your words become flesh).

 

[GodisONE]

With your logic, Jesus and his command to baptise in the name of Trinity are older than the writings of Luke, who calls the baptism just by the name of Jesus.

but Yeshua did not make that command. that command was added. the RCC has an encyclopedia and wrote it down when they changed that verse. they wrote the notes of changing it 1800 years ago. it's in Catholic archives. it's not like it is make believe, it actually happened!!