Question...

[Locutus]

The problem with the above quotes is they are snippets pulled together to try and prove a case, there is no access to the 1900 edition of the Britannica to check the context or sources used to make the "conclusion" - probably the same with the rest of the snippets grabbed off the web.

What we do have is the Didache - supposedly a 1st century document that states they did use the "trinitarian" formula.

 

[Demi777]

I thought the "im" in Elohim denotes a plurality.

Elohim also includes the council of God. Not just God. Jesus is a part of Elohim but the father is Adonai

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

The problem with the above quotes is they are snippets pulled together to try and prove a case, there is no access to the 1900 edition of the Britannica to check the context or sources used to make the "conclusion" - probably the same with the rest of the snippets grabbed off the web.

What we do have is the Didache - supposedly a 1st century document that states they did use the "trinitarian" formula.

The Didache has already been debunked as not inspirational evidence. And, it claims the family of Jesus still alive during the writing of the Didache claim He was not divine or God. So yeah, I would use the Didache as toilet paper personally unless you want a rash on your behind

It does not include the resurrection nor did the example of communion state anything about the bread being body of Christ and the wine His blood. It's a complete farce!


I highly doubt the Britannica is making this up. If it makes you feel better than believe it. But generally, Encyclopedia's for years like our Biblical Concordances have been thoroughly checked and proven before it can be added to the format as accepted knowledge.

 

[Locutus]

The beauty of these Encyclopedia's are they have nothing to gain. They just print what actually happens in the history of mankind!

The problem with using just the quoted snippets is two fold - the "Appeal to Authority" (argumentum ab auctoritate ) fallacy - and the authority opinion can't be checked as to accuracy of its sources or the actual sources themselves.

 

[Locutus]

The Didache has already been debunked as not inspirational evidence. And, it claims the family of Jesus still alive during the writing of the Didache claim He was not divine or God.

I gave the link to the Didache - did you read where it says Jesus is not divine?

Quote the reference from the Didache.

I don't think anybody made any claims about its "inspiration".

http://www.thedidache.com/

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I will just leave it at this...

If Jesus did command to baptize in the trinity, Acts written by LUKE who also wrote the account in LUKE shows no one baptizing that way but rather in the name of Jesus. And baptism is mentioned 10 other times from Acts to Revelation and none of it have anything to do with the trinity. So, either Peter not only denied Christ, he also disobeyed Christ by claiming we need to be baptized in Jesus name (Acts 2:38). So would have Paul then disobeyed and the council that approved what they were doing led by James (brother of Jesus).


And obviously, the Catholics claim (since their monks used to hand write the bible before it ever became the KJV) to have changed it. And they claim the first church (which we know as the Book of Acts) to baptize in name of Jesus, not the trinity. And they claim it was around the 2nd century when they changed this (which is 1,300 years before the KJV).

All I can say is there is evidence from the actual source, secular source, and other biblical scholars claiming Matthew 28:19 was changed. Too many sources pertaining to this evidence to believe it is a hoax and a lie. And the secular evidence has no gain in this one way or another. So, they are easier to accept than someone with a personal agenda.

This evidence has been around and known for literally hundreds of years. That means it's hard to believe it's a lie!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I gave the link to the Didache - did you read where it says Jesus is not divine?

Quote the reference from the Didache.

I don't think anybody made any claims about its "inspiration".

http://www.thedidache.com/

I already gave my side of the Didache but here are the thoughts of others whose jobs were to research the Didache:


one of the earliest Christian books ever written –the Didache or the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles— believed to have been composed when Christ’s surviving family was alive during the first century AD, also portrays Jesus Christ as a human and recommends people to follow not Christ, but his teachings instead.

Interestingly, the Didache does not make reference to the Virgin giving Birth, the resurrection, and most significantly perhaps, Jesus as God, rather as his servant.


In addition, the ancient text also details early Communion where there is NOT detail whatsoever of bread and wine being the blood and body of Christ.


It is firmly believed that the early Christian church hid these books for centuries in order to push a different story of Christ.

 

[Locutus]

People have tried various means to knock Jesus off his "perch" over the centuries

Here are some interesting points to ponder:

This is going to be a much shorter section. This claim depends on highlighting the fact that the words of Matthew 28:19 are missing from many early manuscripts. The issue with this is that it is not only these words, but the entire last pages of Matthew that are missing from the earliest manuscripts. This is a common problem in early manuscripts. They didn't have covers and so the last pages often go missing. To ascribe to this a conspiracy to remove evidence of the original words of Matthew is ridiculous. When we look at Bible manuscript evidence we find the following:

1. There is no Greek manuscript of the last page of Matthew that does not include these words. None. Not a single one.
2. The words are found in every Old Latin (Vetus Latina/Itala) that date to before the Vulgate. This includes the Waldensian text-type of the Romaunt. They are also found in all Vulgate manuscripts.
3. The words are found in every Aramaic/Syriac edition including Tatian's Diatessaron (Gospel Harmony) from the second century which is likely based off of the Old Syriac (Vetus Syra) Curetonian and Synaitic gospels, the Peshitta and the later Philoxenian and Harklean redactions.
4. The words are found in every copy of the Boharic and Sahidic Coptic, Geez Ethipopic, Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic and Saxon versions which contain the last page of Matthew's gospel.
5. The only outlier is a very late Hebrew manuscript (dated to 1385 A.D.) of Matthew that we will examine in its own section.

So while it is true we don't currently have any manuscript of Matthew's last page before the third century, from the third century onwards there is an explosion of evidence that these words are authentic to Matthew's gospel from as far east as Georgia and Armenia in the Caucasus, as far south as Ethiopia and as far west as the British Isles. There is no possible way that we would have such uniformity across such wide distances, in so many languages if Matthew didn't write these words. This argument is an example of the logical fallacy called "argument from silence". In our response to the next claim, it will be seen that there is abundant early evidence of Matthew 28:19 being quoted by early Christians of all persuasions.

Full text:

http://www.asitreads.com/blog/2018/...2819-and-response-to-claims-of-inauthenticity

 

[PS]

Well wait, I see what your are saying about the firstborn from the dead portion, but not sure I understand how that ties in with with the " firstborn creation" part.

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. So is the Father. This means Jesus is God on earth, made visible by becoming flesh.

In the Bible Ephraim is the Lord's "firstborn," not because he was born first, he wasn't, Manasseh was born first, BUT Ephraim was pre-eminent over Manasseh. When we are told Jesus is the firstborn over all creation we are being told Jesus is pre-eminent over all creation, meaning Jesus is Creator God, which is a re-affirmation of Col 1:16.

(See Jesus the Word John 1:1-14)

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I would consider it but too many sources back the claim made by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Let's just be honest here, Acts shows us how they were being baptized from the view of Luke. The claims that the first church baptized in Jesus name is backed by the Catholics, the secular sources, and biblical scholars including Luke's Book of Acts. Yeah, I get it we don't really settle too much on what Catholics claim. But the fact is their monks used to hand write the Bible. We have the hell story of Lazarus/rich man when not a single Hebrew/Jew ever was taught by God that hell was a holding place for the lost. We have Isaiah that is Aramaic/Hebrew with a Latin Vulgate word added when Latin vulgate was not used until 700 years after Isaiah was dead. We have other examples of what appears could be tampering. So, we know the Catholic monks at one time hand wrote the bible. Therefore, it should not be difficult to believe as their Encyclopedia claims (they changed Matthew 28:19 from the original baptize in name of Jesus) to the trinity.

That is how I see this, because how they baptized in Acts from Luke's account verifies this!

 

[Angela53510]

The beauty of these Encyclopedia's are they have nothing to gain. They just print what actually happens in the history of mankind!

All people have biases and agendas. There is no such thing as a totally neutral, objective person. Because people write those encyclopedias!

Further, you have not posted links or screen shots for most of your vaunted quotes. Or a bibliography, including page numbers where you got this from, if a book. Taking things out of context is so easy, when you have an agenda!

I suspect you got this out of some kind of Oneness or United Pentecostal book or hand out. I need some primary sources, not third hand from the mother cult.

And speaking of suspicions, you remind me uncannily of a member who was banned yesterday morning, who was also on this thread posting his utter garbage. Maybe rlm65? I'll have to give a heads up to the mods.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

All people have biases and agendas. There is no such thing as a totally neutral, objective person. Because people write those encyclopedias!

Further, you have not posted links or screen shots for most of your vaunted quotes. Or a bibliography, including page numbers where you got this from, if a book. Taking things out of context is so easy, when you have an agenda!

I suspect you got this out of some kind of Oneness or United Pentecostal book or hand out. I need some primary sources, not third hand from the mother cult.

And speaking of suspicions, you remind me uncannily of a member who was banned yesterday morning, who was also on this thread posting his utter garbage. Maybe rlm65? I'll have to give a heads up to the mods.

I see, if I agree with your views I am on the in, but if I disagree then I am tattled on. Interesting practice for someone claiming be a follower of God.

And the Brittanica does not care if God is 25 people. They would only write down what took place in history. And obviously, this was a hot topic well before this is being discussed now.

But I extend my deepest appreciation for you keeping up with normal Christ like behavior by stabbing people who disagree with you in the back!

 

[Angela53510]

I've just finished reading 30 books by scholars on the Trinity, including Catholics, and you are so off base it is unbelievable. The Trinity is embedded in the NT in particular in so many verses!

The baptismal formula is irrelevant, even if you are right about Matt 28:19 being changed, which I strongly doubt. With a Trinity, God, whom we cannot see, could not have sent his Son, who we can see, in the incarnation, the perfect sacrifice for sin, because he is God. Without the Holy Spirit, we could never be saved! And the Holy Spirit must be God, in order to do the work of God. Different functions, three different hypostasis, but ONE BEING or ousia, in Greek!

I could spend hours showing why God is the Trinity, but what would be the point? You didn't respond to me last post when your profile name was rlm65 or something, so why would you respond now.m? You are obsessed with your false truth. I am sorry for you.

PS I will be reporting you every time you return under a false name, just as a warning!

 

[Angela53510]

Wow! You rejoined 20 minutes after you got banned? Unbelievable!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I've just finished reading 30 books by scholars on the Trinity, including Catholics, and you are so off base it is unbelievable. The Trinity is embedded in the NT in particular in so many verses!

The baptismal formula is irrelevant, even if you are right about Matt 28:19 being changed, which I strongly doubt. With a Trinity, God, whom we cannot see, could not have sent his Son, who we can see, in the incarnation, the perfect sacrifice for sin, because he is God. Without the Holy Spirit, we could never be saved! And the Holy Spirit must be God, in order to do the work of God. Different functions, three different hypostasis, but ONE BEING or ousia, in Greek!

I could spend hours showing why God is the Trinity, but what would be the point? You didn't respond to me last post when your profile name was rlm65 or something, so why would you respond now.m? You are obsessed with your false truth. I am sorry for you.

PS I will be reporting you every time you return under a false name, just as a warning!

I never argued God was triune. I argued God was 3 separate people.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Wow! You rejoined 20 minutes after you got banned? Unbelievable!

You can believe I am whoever you like. I would bet all I have that the person you claim I am and myself don't have the same IP address hahahaha You wouldn't last long as a detective

 

[Angela53510]

I see, if I agree with your views I am on the in, but if I disagree then I am tattled on. Interesting practice for someone claiming be a follower of God.

And the Brittanica does not care if God is 25 people. They would only write down what took place in history. And obviously, this was a hot topic well before this is being discussed now.

But I extend my deepest appreciation for you keeping up with normal Christ like behavior by stabbing people who disagree with you in the back!

You are an unabashed heretic, spewing your lies in this forum. You have outright committed fraud by coming back under a new profile 20 minutes after being banned. As for IP address, there are so many easy ways to change it, from dual IPs to revolving IPs, changing servers, or an overlay IP, like my DIL has, so she can watch British shows which you can't get here, or American ones for Canadians. Besides, whichever method you used, it just makes you a worse liar! Bragging about changing IPs? How ungodly if you!

Being a liar is just not indicative of being a Christian. I have no obligation to hide your little secret, when you keep reposting exactly the same heretical garbage that got you banned in the first place. Your content is overlapping at what? 80%?

I'm sorry if you thought I was stabbing you in the back, because I wasn't! I was stabbing you straight into your chest, looking straight at you. Confronting both your heresies and lies.

Just like Paul condemned the Galatians as Judiazers, and most of his letters were written to address either problems or heresies, there is a HUGE Biblical precedent for outing heretics.

I know the truth, but not everyone does, newbies, people that don't read their Bibles or study might fall victim to your lies. Both inside and outside the forum. Under the old forum, at the bottom of the page, it listed forum members in line, and non members reading, often numbering 400 or more, often from countries which do not have a gospel presence. I want them to know the truth!

Many of us will stand up for correct biblical doctrine, instead of this kind of ignorance and quoting Catholic humanist cardinals. I do hope you will remember that Catholic doctrine has always included the doctrine of the Trinity, and a high Christology!

 

[Demi777]

I gave you what Elohim means in Hebrew (Singular ONE GOD). So no, the Hebrew/Jews never believed God was 3 person throughout entire Old Testament and Jesus (I AM) creator of all was here from day 1 with Adam.

Obviously, if the Hebrews know God is only ONE PERSON, why DON'T YOU?


See ya later Brothers and sisters in Christ!!

Adonai is God the father as they say the name is so holy they dont say yaweh.
Elohim includes the council of God and Jesus.

Tradition branded people into the trinity doctrine. It was created in the time of erasmus. He was forced to add the trinity or he would have been killed. Tho in original scripture its not present.
Keep ur head up

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

You are an unabashed heretic, spewing your lies in this forum. You have outright committed fraud by coming back under a new profile 20 minutes after being banned. As for IP address, there are so many easy ways to change it, from dual IPs to revolving IPs, changing servers, or an overlay IP, like my DIL has, so she can watch British shows which you can't get here, or American ones for Canadians. Besides, whichever method you used, it just makes you a worse liar! Bragging about changing IPs? How ungodly if you!

Being a liar is just not indicative of being a Christian. I have no obligation to hide your little secret, when you keep reposting exactly the same heretical garbage that got you banned in the first place. Your content is overlapping at what? 80%?

I'm sorry if you thought I was stabbing you in the back, because I wasn't! I was stabbing you straight into your chest, looking straight at you. Confronting both your heresies and lies.

Just like Paul condemned the Galatians as Judiazers, and most of his letters were written to address either problems or heresies, there is a HUGE Biblical precedent for outing heretics.

I know the truth, but not everyone does, newbies, people that don't read their Bibles or study might fall victim to your lies. Both inside and outside the forum. Under the old forum, at the bottom of the page, it listed forum members in line, and non members reading, often numbering 400 or more, often from countries which do not have a gospel presence. I want them to know the truth!

Many of us will stand up for correct biblical doctrine, instead of this kind of ignorance and quoting Catholic humanist cardinals. I do hope you will remember that Catholic doctrine has always included the doctrine of the Trinity, and a high Christology!

So prove to me the triune God is literally 3 separate people vs 3 manifestations?

Jesus never claimed He was the 2nd person or the Holy Ghost to come in His place was the 3rd person. Where in the Bible anywhere does it claim 3 separate people? That is what real heresy is!

 

[Angela53510]

I never argued God was triune. I argued God was 3 separate people.

Tritheism?? Not any better than modalism. Both are early church heresies. And God is three persons, (not separate people!) but only one being, or essence. Ousia, as the Greek Cappadocians so clearly explained. Probably study some of the Greek theologians. John Zizioulos Being as Communion might be a difficult but good start for you.

The Greeks emphasized the hypostasis or substance/person of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than the unity of the three hypostasis, as Augustine and the Western Church. Both are right, but we just don't hear much about the 3 hypostasis in the west. I hope that will straighten out your theology!