Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?

[bluto]

You said this quasar, "God, who is the Spirit, makes it clear that He is also Holy." This does "NOT" means that God the Father is the person of the Holy Spirit. And when you look at John 4:24 the verse is teaching that God is a spiritual being and we are to worship Him in a spiritual way. This verse does not mean that God the Father is the Holy Spirit because the Father is Holy.

Secondly, if we were to follow your line of "errant" reasoning I could say, "Jesus Christ identified Himself as the bread of life, does that mean He is a loaf of bread quasar? In your mind you think you have verses to support your position but the truth is your taking those verses out of context to support your wrong teaching. As well, you still have not addressed my post to you except to say "look up your post #blah blah blah." That will not cut it, so here is what I posted and please address the very specific issues I raised.

Ok quasar, I have not forgotten about you. And your right, my argument is a prime case of a syllogism because it cannot be refuted. The Bible does identify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as God. Not "a gods," not "three gods," and surely not three made up pagan gods, but the ONE GOD. And if you could refute the syllogism you would have done it but instead your asking me "why" questions which I will be happy to address.

First of all your question? "Then explain to me why the Bible teaches God is the Holy Spirit and His title is Father? One person!" Your question is an "assumption" because the Bible does not teach the Father is the person of the Holy Spirit. If the Father is the Holy Spirit (and you said He is on the basis that God the Father is Holy) then there would be no need for the Bible to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Father. One would only see the same continued metaphorical applications being used all the time. God the Father is never identified in the Bible as the person of the Holy Spirit.

Here are some examples of what I mean. Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was formless and vlid, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and THE SPIRIT of God was moving over the surface of the waters." Notice the rest of the verses say, "Then God" said or did this or that. Then at Acts 5:3,4, "But Peter said, "Ananias why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" Why does it not just say, "why did Satan fill your heart to lie to God?" And at vs4, "While it remained unsold did it not remain your own? And after it was sold was it not under your control? You have not lied to men but to God." In other words, the Holy Spirit is idneitifed as God but not as God the Father as you errantly teach.

Or anothe example! John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him, and make OUR abode with him." So here you have God the Father and God the Son who will make their abode with them and no mention of the Holy Spirit until vs26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, WHOM THE FATHER WILL SEND in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

So quasar, if the Father is the Holy Spirit why would have to send Himself? Why are God the Father and the Holy Spirit distinguished? I can you many examples but hopefully you get the point. Now to your second question? It is true that God the Son and God the Father are two distinct persons. I'm not argueing that point. What I'm telling you is the fact that the Son preexisted His incarnation. Not as "separate" persons as you said but "distinct" persons. There is a difference between the meaning of the two words.

You yourself admit that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God the Son but the rub comes from you saying "Jesus became human at His incarnation." How does that preclude Jesus Christ who is God from preexisting His incarnation. What if I was to prove to you that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is the preincarnate Jesus Christ? But for now let me address your last point. "All men who produce children of their own, have the title of father! With that having been said, why don't Trinitarians make the claim that Jesus and the Son are TWO persons instead of just one, as they so they do Almighty God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father?"

I could not agree with you more quasar. It is a universal law that all sons bear the same nature and their father. Since the Father of Jelsus Christ is God the Father then Jesus' nature is that of Deity. As well, since Mary is the mother of Jesus He has a second nature which is "human being." This is one of the reasons Jesus Christ referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" and as the "Son of God." Now, you cannot split up "natures" because Jesus Christ is one person, not two. In fact, He is the only one that has two natures as I explained.

At John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God." That word "with" means that the Word/Logos is "with" somebody else other than Himself and He is identified as God. At verse 14 that same person who is the
Word/Jesus Christ became flesh/human. One persons with two natures. This is not hard to understand because this is what the Bible teaches.

How in the world do you explain or reconcile that the Bible makes it perfectly clear that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct from each other? And if the Father is the person of the Holy Spirit as you say then there would be no need to distinguish Him from the Holy Spirit as the Bible does in numerous places.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[jaybird88]

The separateness of the Holy Spirit was not yet revealed

makes no difference, at the time of the statement the Holy Spirit would have still been self aware of itself, unless in fact it is just an aspect of the Father, a creating force, like my hand when it writes words on paper.

 

[williamjordan]

You misrepresent what I have written and try to rationalize the teachings in the Bible of a triune Godhead, that is neither taught from the Bible, nor from Jesus or His disciples. As admitted by many esteemed Trinitarians and all encyclopedias. But rather from the church fathers who sold it to the RCC, by the pressure of Constantine. There are a number of my posts on this thread that give you the historic development of the Trinity in the fourth century.and prior. I was a Triniarian for 45 years until I tired of trying to explain it to others. I entered in to an extensive research and study, over a 35 year period of time to find the Biblical description of God and origin of Jesus directly from the Bible. My pst #341 is the result of my work. The entire project is not to denograte the Trinity, but rather to expose God's truth for those who seek it.


Quasar02

First, I would love (I'm radiating with enthusiam when I say this) for you to cite any one Encyclopedia that would say such. You've pulled a Jehovah's Witness card from your sleeve here in arguing this, and incorrectly so. However, perhaps you have different or new information, and so I'm willing to give you the opportunity to present that information here.

 

[valiant]

makes no difference, at the time of the statement the Holy Spirit would have still been self aware of itself, unless in fact it is just an aspect of the Father, a creating force, like my hand when it writes words on paper.

the Holy Spirit would speak of what had been revealed, He would not be bound by your ideas.,

Then why does Jesus speak of Him as a persona in his own right? He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak (John 16.12). Hears from Whom?

 

[williamjordan]

Opinion is meaningless without proper Scriptural support.



1. it is necessary to properly identify God, whom both Jesus, Paul and John have done, in Jn.1:18, 4:24; Rom.1:20; 2 Cor.3:17-18, Col.1:15 and 1 Jn.4:12, when they identify Him as Spirit.

God, who is the Spirit, makes it clear that He is also Holy, in Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Ps.99:3; Ps.99:5; 1 Pet.1:15-16 and in Rev.4:8. Therefore there is no option to the fact that God is the HOLY SPIRIT. [As well as the Father, according to the Scriptures,.

The origin of the person who later became Jesus, the Son of God/God the Son: [Does that look like I deny the deity of Christ?]

It can be clearly seen from the Scriptures, God is indeed the Holy Spirit. With that having been Scripturally established, what about the origin of the pre-incarnate Jesus, as well as the identity of His Father ?

Beginning in Proverbs 8, pertaining to the attributes of God's Wisdom, I refer specifically to verses 22 through 36, that clearly identify the pre-incarnate spirit of Jesus Christ as the WHO, of the Wisdom of God. [From the NIV].

"The Lord brought me forth as the first of His works, before His deed of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning,

before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth, [Vs 22-24]
when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before He made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. [Vs 24-26]

[SUP]Col.1:15 "[/SUP]The Son is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN over all creation."

The pre-incarnate Jesus, WAS NOT the Son of God/God the Son until He was produced by God, the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, recorded in Mt.1:20 and Lk.1:35. The Holy Spirit then became the Father of Jesus!. The term father is the TITLE of every man who produces children of his own! The same as God the Father and God the Son! TWO VERY SEPARATE ENTITIES. Review Jn.14:28; 17:3 and 5

The Holy Spirit made it clear He was the ONLY God during OT times in Deut.4:35; 32:39; Isa.44:6; Isa.45:5., and in many other places as well. Your claim Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal to YHWH breaks the Scriptures that refute it. Review Jn.14:28; 17:3; Lk.24:46 and Tom.10:9.

There are a number of theophanies of the pre-incarnate Jesus in the OT. Such as in Gen. 18 and 32; Ex.33:22; Jos.5:13-15; Dan.3:24-25 and 12:7.



Jesus received the Holy Spirit from His Father in Mt.1:20 and Lk.1:35. He is the COMFORTER/ADVOCATE/HELPER, in Jn.16:7, to differentiate the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit the Father gave to Jesus.

[SUP]Jn.8:28 "[/SUP]So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up[SUP][a][/SUP] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me."

[SUP]Jn.14:10 "[/SUP]Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." The COMFORTER/Holy Spirit, from Jesus, is what all of us who believe in Jesus receive , beginning at Pentecost. Confirming Mt.3:11

According to the above Scriptures together with Jn.14:28 and 17:3, The Father is greater than the Son..

Jn.20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"




Previously addressed above..



God is capable of using His Spirit in many different ways, including, having it given to all of us whom He gave it to, by His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

It is clear, the reason you fail to comprehend what I have written, is because you obviously have not read it, revealed by the argument you use against it.

I can assure you, any doctrine that is not taught from the Bible, or by Jesus, or His disciples, can never be proven.


Quasar92

One point I was going to make last night in my post on John 1.1, was the fact that I believe John 1 echoes much of what is said when Paul penned the book of Philippians some 40 or 50 years earlier.

Philippians 2.6, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (“Who, existing in the form of God”) [v. 6] speaks to, in the context, and totality of Philippians 2, a pre-existing condition (more on this below); however, being a present participial phrase which is linked to a clause with an aorist verb (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος [“becoming in the likeness of men”]), it indicates the state of the subject when, and as the action of the main verb is performed. That is, the μορφῇ θεοῦ is not just a condition that was at one time held onto before “becoming in the likeness of men,” but one that was retained while the action was performed, and even after the action took place, and therefore, continues to exist into the “now” or present. Not only was Christ “existing” (not “existed,” or “was”) in the μορφῇ θεοῦ prior to the incarnation [v. 7], but also at the very moment in history that Paul penned these words to the Philippians (that is, after the death, burial, resurrection, and glorious ascension to the right hand of the Father), Christ remained, and forevermore remains in the μορφῇ θεοῦ (“form of God”). And this is why B.B. Warfield, while commenting on this passage, said,

“Paul is not telling us here, then, what Our Lord was once, but rather what He already was, or, better, what in His intrinsic nature He is; he is not describing a past mode of existence of Our Lord.”


​

​

The order of events in Philippians 2 is of much significance, because it recognizes that Christ existed prior to His birth at Bethlehem. The sequence of events in vv. 6-7 signifies a prior state, that is, “in the form of God,” and then a subsequent “form of a servant.”

The picture of Christ’s humility begins with His existence “in the form of God,” which is prior chronologically to His entrance into the world at Bethlehem when he took “the form of a servant, being born (or ‘made’) in the likeness of men” (v. 7). Imprisoned between these two parallel statements is the means in which the activity from “form of God” to the “form of a servant” takes place. So often we skim over the text, and in doing so, miss something that is key. Prior to “being born in the likeness of men” there was a voluntary act of self-emptying on behalf of Christ, which is to say the least, remarkably striking. If Christ was active in His own “kenosis” (which occurred prior to “being born in the likeness of men”) then He was not simply the passive envoy of the Father as modern day Monarchianism (Socinianism) teaches, rather, this is a strong implication of preexistence, from the fact that Christ Himself acted in the event of the incarnation.

You stated,

“The pre-incarnate Jesus, WAS NOT the Son of God/God the Son until He was produced by God, the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.”
​

However, if this is the case, one must ask: In what what did Jesus humble himself?

In Philippians 2.5-9 we have Paul asserting Christ's prehuman ownership of an equality with God that he did not exploit for his own gain, an equality or similarity that he is elsewhere expressly said to have possessed (John 1.1; Hebrews 1.3). Paul uses this example of Jesus’ humility and obedience to God to show us how we should think, as Christians.

 

[fredoheaven]

And where do you assume authority to tell me to apologize for posting Scriptural truth? It is clear you have done very little reading of the contents of this thread. Review the link I posted in #341 for the Biblical description of God, that fully supports my post on the critique of Mt.28:19 and 1 Jn.5:7, in which the former is an alteration and the latter, an additive by unscrupulous scribes, defending their false beliefs, originally perpetrated by a few of the church fathers and the RCC who bought them.

As a qualified teacher of the Bible, my studies and research cover a period of more than 70 years, and I don't post anything that isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit, pertaining to the Scriptures. IMO, you are the one who needs to do the apologizing.


Quasar92

Age does not matter!
2 Chronicles 24King James Version (KJV)
24 Joash was seven years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Zibiah of Beersheba.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest.
2 Kings 22King James Version (KJV)
22 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.

Having an older age is not an edge. For God can use anyone to what He likes. God can use someone in their sixty’s, in their seventy’s and even in their old age. Noah did as he built the ark. Abraham did! Sarah did even at her old age she brought Isaac in this world as God’s promise and many others yet we need to understand we need to understand that in the bible, God can use the young. Young as David as he defeated Goliath and even Joash, the seven (7) year old king and did a right thing in the sight of the LORD. Also Josiah did the right thing beginning at eight (8) years old. So age has nothing to do with Biblical discussion. Absolutely unnecessary!


John 19:19-20King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Yea it was also written in the language of Latin. Like the Roman soldiers, they are not going to read the inscription being written in different language. If you don’t want to consider Latin language then you do not even believe in the following because they were transliterated Latin words:

“adoption, latar, assurance, beauty, Calvary, cross, crucify, damnation, divine, excel, excellent, exhort, faith, grace, honour, immortality, just, justice, justification, justify,liberty, mercy,, miracle, mortify, obedience, obey, offer, pardon, prayer, preacher, predestine, propitiation, purification, reconcile, reconciliation, revive, sacrifice, salvation, sanctification, sanctify, save, savior, separate, servant, supplication, surely, tempt, temptation, testament”

Dum excusare credis, accusas - St. Jerome
"When you believe you are excusing yourself, you are accusing yourself."

 

[jaybird88]

the Holy Spirit would speak of what had been revealed, He would not be bound by your ideas.,

Then why does Jesus speak of Him as a persona in his own right? He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak (John 16.12). Hears from Whom?

one passage with the word "he" describing the HS and a mountain of passages describing the HS as an aspect of the Father. the HS was given as a gift, when was Jesus or the Father given as a gift? when was the HS ever prayed to or worshiped? not one example of that in the bible. so with all that it makes me believe we are probably not understanding John 16 12 correctly when we make the HS an additional person that can not be confirmed anywhere else in the bible. Jesus and Paul both teach us we need 3 witnesses to establish something, where are the other 2 examples?

 

[fredoheaven]

Age does not matter!
2 Chronicles 24King James Version (KJV)
24 Joash was seven years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Zibiah of Beersheba.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest.
2 Kings 22King James Version (KJV)
22 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.

Having an older age is not an edge. For God can use anyone to what He likes. God can use someone in their sixty’s, in their seventy’s and even in their old age. Noah did as he built the ark. Abraham did! Sarah did even at her old age she brought Isaac in this world as God’s promise and many others yet we need to understand we need to understand that in the bible, God can use the young. Young as David as he defeated Goliath and even Joash, the seven (7) year old king and did a right thing in the sight of the LORD. Also Josiah did the right thing beginning at eight (8) years old. So age has nothing to do with Biblical discussion. Absolutely unnecessary!


John 19:19-20King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Yea it was also written in the language of Latin. Like the Roman soldiers, they are not going to read the inscription being written in different language. If you don’t want to consider Latin language then you do not even believe in the following because they were transliterated Latin words:

“adoption, latar, assurance, beauty, Calvary, cross, crucify, damnation, divine, excel, excellent, exhort, faith, grace, honour, immortality, just, justice, justification, justify,liberty, mercy,, miracle, mortify, obedience, obey, offer, pardon, prayer, preacher, predestine, propitiation, purification, reconcile, reconciliation, revive, sacrifice, salvation, sanctification, sanctify, save, savior, separate, servant, supplication, surely, tempt, temptation, testament”

Dum excusare credis, accusas - St. Jerome
"When you believe you are excusing yourself, you are accusing yourself."

"latar" should be "altar"

 

[williamjordan]

one passage with the word "he" describing the HS and a mountain of passages describing the HS as an aspect of the Father. the HS was given as a gift, when was Jesus or the Father given as a gift? when was the HS ever prayed to or worshiped? not one example of that in the bible. so with all that it makes me believe we are probably not understanding John 16 12 correctly when we make the HS an additional person that can not be confirmed anywhere else in the bible. Jesus and Paul both teach us we need 3 witnesses to establish something, where are the other 2 examples?

This would be inaccurate. In the dialogue between Peter and Ananias, Peter asks, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... ?” The word “filled” here is the same word Luke uses in the Book of Acts to express being “filled” with the Holy Spirit. In Acts 4.8 and 4.31, Peter is presented as a man who is “filled with the Spirit,” in perfect contrast to Ananias whom Satan had “filled” to speak a lie (Acts 5.3). The Holy Spirit, like Satan, is an unseen figure who participates in the narrative; both are very real, personal spirits that seek to “fill” people to some end, either for truth, or for lies.

 

[Quasar92]

You reveal the lie put forward by the Devil. The triunity of God was revealed by Jesus. You reveal that God has not made Himself known to your heart,

And your meaningless opinion is without a shred of Scriptural proof of a single false statement I made, in post #341, that comes directly from the Bible. That reveals who and what God is, together with the origin of the pre-incarnate Jesus, that can be taught from the Bible. As opposed to the Trinity, which cannot be taught from the Bible nor did Jesus or His disciples ever teach it. Mind your own glass house you are so careless to be judging others of!


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

This would be inaccurate. In the dialogue between Peter and Ananias, Peter asks, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... ?” The word “filled” here is the same word Luke uses in the Book of Acts to express being “filled” with the Holy Spirit. In Acts 4.8 and 4.31, Peter is presented as a man who is “filled with the Spirit,” in perfect contrast to Ananias whom Satan had “filled” to speak a lie (Acts 5.3). The Holy Spirit, like Satan, is an unseen figure who participates in the narrative; both are very real, personal spirits that seek to “fill” people to some end, either for truth, or for lies.

And what does Jn.4:24 and 2 Cor.3:17-18 tell you? If God is not Spirit, please sound off and tell me wha you thinkt He is!


Quasar92

 

[fredoheaven]

Quasar92,you,a non-Trinitarian say:"What is false about the words in Matthew 28:19, is Jesus allegedly commanding his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

All the best New Testament Greek scholars have always held that Jesus said exactly what is in Mt. 28:19. More significantly so does the Apostle Matthew. The Holy Spirit confirms this to the Christian.
You try to usurp their -including Jesus's- authority by the words I quoted you saying. Can you not see this?
I repeat: recant your sinful and nonsensical position on Mt.28:19.

And you do not have a degree from Liberty University.

There is no point in discussing Biblical issues with someone who knows it all. Especially at the advanced age of 18. In addition to the fact they think the larger the fonts are, i.e. the louder they can yell, the more effective, their views will be. But rather, it shows how immature they are.

You have already had my response, in post #449, with the Scriptural support refuting you! Either prove any part of it is false, or your views are.

I have a Masters from Liberty Home Bible Institute, and my professor for the course I mastered in was Dr. Harold Wilmington


Quasar92.[/QUOTE]

I only have the book of Dr. HL Wilmington, the "Wilmington Guide to the Bible" and teaches Trinity. Did Dr. Wilmington recant his position on the Biblical stance of the trinity? or that the Falwells' no longer believe in the Godhead? Need to google TRBC...

"What became the basis for “Willmington’s Guide to the Bible” was taken from those sheets.

He has written 20 books beginning in 1974 with “The King is Coming” and continuing through this year. His most recent book is “What the Bible says About the Trinity.” The back of this book describes it as being “one in a series of ‘basic Biblical beliefs’ which have been held by both Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church (TRBC) from their very beginning.”
Eighty years dedicated to God –

 

[fredoheaven]

Quassar, the LBN affirms the doctrine of the Trinity!

Doctrinal Statement – Liberty Church Network

 

[Quasar92]

[QUOTE;Quasar922798819]There is no point in discussing Biblical issues with someone who knows it all. Especially at the advanced age of 18. In addition to the fact they think the larger the fonts are, i.e. the louder they can yell, the more effective, their views will be. But rather, it shows how immature they are.

You have already had my response, in post #449, with the Scriptural support refuting you! Either prove any part of it is false, or your views are.

I have a Masters from Liberty Home Bible Institute, and my professor for the course I mastered in was Dr. Harold Wilmington


Quasar92.[/QUOTE]

I only have the book of Dr. HL Wilmington, the "Wilmington Guide to the Bible" and teaches Trinity. Did Dr. Wilmington recant his position on the Biblical stance of the trinity? or that the Falwells' no longer believe in the Godhead? Need to google TRBC...

"What became the basis for “Willmington’s Guide to the Bible” was taken from those sheets.

He has written 20 books beginning in 1974 with “The King is Coming” and continuing through this year. His most recent book is “What the Bible says About the Trinity.” The back of this book describes it as being “one in a series of ‘basic Biblical beliefs’ which have been held by both Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church (TRBC) from their very beginning.”
Eighty years dedicated to God –[/QUOTE]

In addition to Dr.Wilmington being my mentor from Liberty University, I have held memberships in the Presbyterian, the Brethren, the Methodist, the Lutheran and the Baptist Churches, depending om where I was living at the time, all of whom teach the Trinity. Which I did as well for 45 years, until I tired of trying to explain it to others from the Bible, since it did not teach God to be triune, not did Jesus or His disciple ever teach such a thing. I have both volumes of Dr. Wilmington's Guide to the Bile, plus hundreds of both audio and video tapes he provided me during my studies under him. Since you claim to have all the answers, let me see you prove the Trinity from the Bible! Review my post #341, which took years of study and research to develop, together with the following:

What about the assertions trinitarians use as a mainstay of their belief, of 1 Jn.5:7 and Mt.28:19? The fact of the matter is, they cannot be blamed for believing what has been either an insertion, or an alteration of the original text by the author, yet appears in most of the English translations of our Bibles.

However, we should all know the most obvious factor of all; that the term father is only a title. The very same one every man gets when he has produced children of his own. Therefore, reference to "...baptize all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," trinitarians use to make two persons of their trio, out of God, who is the Holy Spirit and Father, one and the same person, according to Mt.1:20 and Lk.1:35, together with the Son, is false. Our Godhead is only two persons, God, who is the Holy Spirit and Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, according to the Scriptures, not three!

The Scriptural facts to support God to be the Holy Spirit are: Jn.1:18; 4:24; 2 Cor.3:17-18; Col.1:15; Lev.11:44-45; 1

Pet.1:15-16 and 1 Jn.4:12, as Spirit.

That He is also Holy are in: Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Ps.99:3; Ps.99:5 and 1 Pet.1:15-16.

Let's have a brief look at the history behind these two verses and learn the truth about them. The following is through the courtesy of SDA Global.

But various authorities mention a work entitled Discrepancies in the Gospels, and another work entitled The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.

According to Conybeare:

Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany. .. in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. '

Ploughman's research uncovered all of these quotations except for one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording "in my name". Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following:

For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations" simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition "in his name". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. " It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.' (col. 240, p. 136)

Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902:

It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About the Theology of the Church,' he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae.

In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote:

It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.

Naturally an objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argued that Eusebius indeed found the traditional text in his manuscripts, but substituted the briefer wording in his works for fear of vulgarizing the "sacred" Trinitarian wording. Interestingly, a modern Bishop revived the very argument used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-8:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood:and these three agree in one.
According to Porson (in a preface to his Letters):

Bengel. .. allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no genuine manuscripts. .. Surely then, the verse is spurious! No! This learned man finds a way of escape. 'The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. ' Under what a lack of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument!?

Conybeare continued, refuting the argument of the Bishop of Ely:

It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius' argument, when he cites the text, involves the text 'in my name. ' For, he asks, 'in whose name?' and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10.

Finally, the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics states:

The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all the nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent.

Having considered the evidence of Eusebius, let us also consider some other early writers.


Quasa92

 

[williamjordan]

And what does Jn.4:24 and 2 Cor.3:17-18 tell you? If God is not Spirit, please sound off and tell me wha you thinkt He is!


Quasar92

No one denies that God is spirit; however, that is not to say that He is the one identified through the NT as "the Holy Spirit." No where in the NT is "the Holy Spirit" ever addressed as "God the Father," "our Father," nor is there any place in the NT where God the Father is addressed as "the Holy Spirit." The NT does not use "God the Father," and "the Holy Spirit" synonymously. You would expect somewhere, perhaps in a prayer or something, that the NT authors would refer to "the Holy Spirit" as the Father, or vice versa; however, this is not found anywhere in the text of Scripture. Instead, we have benedictions such as that which is found in 2 Corinthians 13.14, which would be completely redundant had Paul thought the figure called "the Holy Spirit" was also "God the Father."

 

[Quasar92]

You said this quasar, "God, who is the Spirit, makes it clear that He is also Holy." This does "NOT" means that God the Father is the person of the Holy Spirit. And when you look at John 4:24 the verse is teaching that God is a spiritual being and we are to worship Him in a spiritual way. This verse does not mean that God the Father is the Holy Spirit because the Father is Holy.

Secondly, if we were to follow your line of "errant" reasoning I could say, "Jesus Christ identified Himself as the bread of life, does that mean He is a loaf of bread quasar? In your mind you think you have verses to support your position but the truth is your taking those verses out of context to support your wrong teaching. As well, you still have not addressed my post to you except to say "look up your post #blah blah blah." That will not cut it, so here is what I posted and please address the very specific issues I raised.

Ok quasar, I have not forgotten about you. And your right, my argument is a prime case of a syllogism because it cannot be refuted. The Bible does identify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as God. Not "a gods," not "three gods," and surely not three made up pagan gods, but the ONE GOD. And if you could refute the syllogism you would have done it but instead your asking me "why" questions which I will be happy to address.

First of all your question? "Then explain to me why the Bible teaches God is the Holy Spirit and His title is Father? One person!" Your question is an "assumption" because the Bible does not teach the Father is the person of the Holy Spirit. If the Father is the Holy Spirit (and you said He is on the basis that God the Father is Holy) then there would be no need for the Bible to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Father. One would only see the same continued metaphorical applications being used all the time. God the Father is never identified in the Bible as the person of the Holy Spirit.

Here are some examples of what I mean. Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was formless and vlid, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and THE SPIRIT of God was moving over the surface of the waters." Notice the rest of the verses say, "Then God" said or did this or that. Then at Acts 5:3,4, "But Peter said, "Ananias why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" Why does it not just say, "why did Satan fill your heart to lie to God?" And at vs4, "While it remained unsold did it not remain your own? And after it was sold was it not under your control? You have not lied to men but to God." In other words, the Holy Spirit is idneitifed as God but not as God the Father as you errantly teach.

Or anothe example! John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him, and make OUR abode with him." So here you have God the Father and God the Son who will make their abode with them and no mention of the Holy Spirit until vs26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, WHOM THE FATHER WILL SEND in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

So quasar, if the Father is the Holy Spirit why would have to send Himself? Why are God the Father and the Holy Spirit distinguished? I can you many examples but hopefully you get the point. Now to your second question? It is true that God the Son and God the Father are two distinct persons. I'm not argueing that point. What I'm telling you is the fact that the Son preexisted His incarnation. Not as "separate" persons as you said but "distinct" persons. There is a difference between the meaning of the two words.

You yourself admit that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God the Son but the rub comes from you saying "Jesus became human at His incarnation." How does that preclude Jesus Christ who is God from preexisting His incarnation. What if I was to prove to you that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is the preincarnate Jesus Christ? But for now let me address your last point. "All men who produce children of their own, have the title of father! With that having been said, why don't Trinitarians make the claim that Jesus and the Son are TWO persons instead of just one, as they so they do Almighty God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father?"

I could not agree with you more quasar. It is a universal law that all sons bear the same nature and their father. Since the Father of Jelsus Christ is God the Father then Jesus' nature is that of Deity. As well, since Mary is the mother of Jesus He has a second nature which is "human being." This is one of the reasons Jesus Christ referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" and as the "Son of God." Now, you cannot split up "natures" because Jesus Christ is one person, not two. In fact, He is the only one that has two natures as I explained.

At John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God." That word "with" means that the Word/Logos is "with" somebody else other than Himself and He is identified as God. At verse 14 that same person who is the
Word/Jesus Christ became flesh/human. One persons with two natures. This is not hard to understand because this is what the Bible teaches.

How in the world do you explain or reconcile that the Bible makes it perfectly clear that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct from each other? And if the Father is the person of the Holy Spirit as you say then there would be no need to distinguish Him from the Holy Spirit as the Bible does in numerous places.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

it is necessary to properly identify God, whom both Jesus, Paul and John have done, in Jn.1:18, 4:24; Rom.1:20; 2 Cor.3:17-18, Col.1:15 and 1 Jn.4:12, when they identify Him as Spirit.

2. God, who is the Spirit, makes it clear that He is also Holy, in Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Ps.99:3; Ps.99:5; 1 Pet.1:15-16 and in Rev.4:8. Therefore there is no option to the fact that God is the HOLY SPIRIT. [As well as the Father, according to the Scriptures, recorded in 6. below]

That the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus is documented in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:35. Your above rhetoric does nothing to disprove a single Scriptural fact recorded in post #341. You still have not absorbed what is taught in that post, from things you have written in the above. It proves the Trinity is false, bluto, which the Bible, Jesus, nor His disciples ever taught. I was a Trinitarian for 45 years and tired of trying to explain it to others from the Bible. The works recorded in #341 is a study and research of many years to find the Biblical description of God and the origin of the pre-incarnate Jesus. This thread is not where I began discussing the anomalies of the Trinity! And you better prove my reasoning is errant verses that of your own!


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

There is no point in discussing Biblical issues with someone who knows it all. Especially at the advanced age of 18. In addition to the fact they think the larger the fonts are, i.e. the louder they can yell, the more effective, their views will be. But rather, it shows how immature they are.

You have already had my response, in post #449, with the Scriptural support refuting you! Either prove any part of it is false, or your views are.

I have a Masters from Liberty Home Bible Institute, and my professor for the course I mastered in was Dr. Harold Wilmington


Quasar92.

I only have the book of Dr. HL Wilmington, the "Wilmington Guide to the Bible" and teaches Trinity. Did Dr. Wilmington recant his position on the Biblical stance of the trinity? or that the Falwells' no longer believe in the Godhead? Need to google TRBC...

"What became the basis for “Willmington’s Guide to the Bible” was taken from those sheets.

He has written 20 books beginning in 1974 with “The King is Coming” and continuing through this year. His most recent book is “What the Bible says About the Trinity.” The back of this book describes it as being “one in a series of ‘basic Biblical beliefs’ which have been held by both Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church (TRBC) from their very beginning.”
Eighty years dedicated to God –[/QUOTE]



My reply to you in the above is in post #494. My apology, I thought it was from the originator of that post with the large fonts.


Quasar92

 

[williamjordan]

I only have the book of Dr. HL Wilmington, the "Wilmington Guide to the Bible" and teaches Trinity. Did Dr. Wilmington recant his position on the Biblical stance of the trinity? or that the Falwells' no longer believe in the Godhead? Need to google TRBC...

"What became the basis for “Willmington’s Guide to the Bible” was taken from those sheets.

He has written 20 books beginning in 1974 with “The King is Coming” and continuing through this year. His most recent book is “What the Bible says About the Trinity.” The back of this book describes it as being “one in a series of ‘basic Biblical beliefs’ which have been held by both Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church (TRBC) from their very beginning.”
Eighty years dedicated to God –

In addition to Dr.Wilmington being my mentor from Liberty University, I have held memberships in the Presbyterian, the Brethren, the Methodist, the Lutheran and the Baptist Churches, depending om where I was living at the time, all of whom teach the Trinity. Which I did as well for 45 years, until I tired of trying to explain it to others from the Bible, since it did not teach God to be triune, not did Jesus or His disciple ever teach such a thing. I have both volumes of Dr. Wilmington's Guide to the Bile, plus hundreds of both audio and video tapes he provided me during my studies under him. Since you claim to have all the answers, let me see you prove the Trinity from the Bible! Review my post #341, which took years of study and research to develop, together with the following:

What about the assertions trinitarians use as a mainstay of their belief, of 1 Jn.5:7 and Mt.28:19? The fact of the matter is, they cannot be blamed for believing what has been either an insertion, or an alteration of the original text by the author, yet appears in most of the English translations of our Bibles.

However, we should all know the most obvious factor of all; that the term father is only a title. The very same one every man gets when he has produced children of his own. Therefore, reference to "...baptize all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," trinitarians use to make two persons of their trio, out of God, who is the Holy Spirit and Father, one and the same person, according to Mt.1:20 and Lk.1:35, together with the Son, is false. Our Godhead is only two persons, God, who is the Holy Spirit and Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, according to the Scriptures, not three!

The Scriptural facts to support God to be the Holy Spirit are: Jn.1:18; 4:24; 2 Cor.3:17-18; Col.1:15; Lev.11:44-45; 1

Pet.1:15-16 and 1 Jn.4:12, as Spirit.

That He is also Holy are in: Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Ps.99:3; Ps.99:5 and 1 Pet.1:15-16.

Let's have a brief look at the history behind these two verses and learn the truth about them. The following is through the courtesy of SDA Global.

But various authorities mention a work entitled Discrepancies in the Gospels, and another work entitled The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.

According to Conybeare:

Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany. .. in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. '

Ploughman's research uncovered all of these quotations except for one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording "in my name". Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following:

For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations" simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition "in his name". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. " It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.' (col. 240, p. 136)

Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902:

It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About the Theology of the Church,' he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae.

In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote:

It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.

Naturally an objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argued that Eusebius indeed found the traditional text in his manuscripts, but substituted the briefer wording in his works for fear of vulgarizing the "sacred" Trinitarian wording. Interestingly, a modern Bishop revived the very argument used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-8:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood:and these three agree in one.
According to Porson (in a preface to his Letters):

Bengel. .. allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no genuine manuscripts. .. Surely then, the verse is spurious! No! This learned man finds a way of escape. 'The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. ' Under what a lack of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument!?

Conybeare continued, refuting the argument of the Bishop of Ely:

It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius' argument, when he cites the text, involves the text 'in my name. ' For, he asks, 'in whose name?' and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10.

Finally, the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics states:

The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all the nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent.

Having considered the evidence of Eusebius, let us also consider some other early writers.


Quasa92

The Trinitarian baptismal verbiage has the strongest transmission throughout time and throughout the various geographical locales/text-types, and is found in the writings of some very important historical figures, including Eusebius himself (more particularly in Contra Marcellum I.1.9, I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; Theophania 4.8; Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese), and more importantly, his predecessors which pre-date the earliest known copy of Matthew 28.19 as it is found in Codex Vaticanus. Not only is this verbiage contained through the various text-types, but there are also no alternative readings found in the Byzantine, Alexandrian, or Western traditions, and this is absolutely critical.

The point is this: Certain readings may be found within manuscripts that are associated with particular locations, and not with others. This leads to the recognition that readings supported by witnesses from a wide range of geographical locations are to be favored over those that are only supported by manuscripts from one geographical region. For example, all other things being equal, a reading supported by an Alexandrian mss and a Western mss is theoretically stronger than two or even three Alexandrian mss and no Western mss. This is because wide geographic attestation for a reading indicates more likelihood that it reflects an earlier common tradition and is closer to the original and less of a likelihood that the reading originated due to a copyist’s error (or God for-bid, a blatant change) that circulated in a given region as peculiar to that region. Consistency across a broad range of locales increases the probability that the agreement among manuscripts goes back to the original. This is why every major critical apparatus (Nestle-Aland 27/28, UBSGNT, CNTTS, Tischendorf) includes the verbiage.

That said, I have compiled a list of patristic references as seen in my next post.

 

[williamjordan]

“That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, ‘For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.’ And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, 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.’” – Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book III, Chapter XVII

“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.’” – Hippolytus, “Against the Heresy of One Noetus”

"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.’" – Tertullian, “On Baptism,” Chapter XIII

”After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father, and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” – Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” Chapter XXVI

“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. Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as the sent.” – Tertullian, “Prescription Against Heretics,” Chapter XX

“The Lord, when, after His resurrection, He sent forth His apostles, charges them, saying, ‘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.’” – Cyprian, Epistle XXIV:2

“For the Lord, after His resurrection, sending His disciples, instructed and taught them in what manner they ought to baptize, saying, ‘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.’” – Cyprian, Epistle LXXII:5

“Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?” – Cyprian, Epistle LXXII:18

“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 evermore and I have the keys of death and of hell.’ 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.’" – Cyprian, “Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews,” Chapter II:26

“This is the sure and immovable teaching and tradition, begun by our Lord after his resurrection from the dead, when he gave his apostles the command: ‘Go ye, make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’This then was preserved and fulfilled by his successors, the blessed apostles, and by all the bishops prior to ourselves who have died in the holy church and shared in its life; and it has lasted down to us, because it is firmer than the whole world. For, he said, ‘heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’” – Dionysius of Alexandria, “First Letter to Xystus”

“And His voice as it were the voice of many waters. The many waters are understood to be many peoples, or the gift of baptism that He sent forth by the apostles, saying: ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Victorinus of Rome, Commentary on the Apocalypse, Chapter I

“Seest thou that all through Scripture the Spirit is preached, and yet nowhere named a creature? And what can the impious have to say if the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" – Gregory Thaumaturgus, “A Sectional Confession of Faith,” Section XIII

”You may perhaps also be asking this: Since the Lord himself told the disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit , why does the Apostle employ here the name of Christ alone in baptism? For he says, ‘We have been baptized into Christ,’ although surely it should not be deemed a legitimate baptism unless it is in the name of the Trinity. But look at Paul’s good sense since, indeed, in the present passage he is not interested in discussing the subject of baptism as much as the death of Christ, in whose likeness he argues that we should die to sin and be buried with Christ.” – Origen, Commentary on Romans V:8

“Moreover, three times sent forth from the ark, flying about through the air over the water, it already signified the sacraments of our Church. Whence also the Lord Christ charges upon Peter, and moreover also upon the rest of His disciples, ‘Go and preach the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ That is, that that same Trinity which operated figuratively in Noah's days through the dove, now operates in the Church spiritually through the disciples.” – Anonymous, c. 255, “Against Novation”

“Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: ‘Go, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been used to be observed, yet it behooves us to consider that invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church.” – Anonymous, c. 250, “On Re-Baptism”

”Then Probus arising from the ground fell again upon the couch, and arising early he came to Paul, and finding him baptising many in the name of the life-giving Trinity, he said, ‘My lord Paul, if only I were worthy to receive baptism, behold the hour.’ Paul said to him, ‘Son, behold the water is ready for the cleansing of those that come to Christ.’ Therefore immediately taking off his garments, and Paul laying hold of him, he leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said, ‘We baptise thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ." – The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena, Section XXI

“The blessed Andrew weeping said, ‘What shall I say or what shall I speak concerning thy mercy, O God, that thus thou at all times cleavest to the lowly, and takest care for those in ignorance, being without arrogance and full of mercy?’ And having completed the prayer he baptised the maidens in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” –The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena, Section XXX

“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. Then taking bread also he gave her the Eucharist saying, Let this be to thee for a remission of sins and for a renewing of thy soul.” – The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena, Section XIV

“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.’” – Lucius of Castra Galbae, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics

“The truth of our Mother 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.’ Since, then, we manifestly know that heretics have not either Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, they ought, when they come to the Church our Mother, truly to be born again and to be baptized; that the cancer which they had, and the anger of damnation, and the witchery of error, may be sanctified by the holy and heavenly laver.” – Munnulus of Girba, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics

“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.’ Thus the false and wicked baptism of heretics must be rejected by us, and refuted with all detestation, from whose mouth is expressed poison, not life, not celestial grace, but blasphemy of the Trinity.” – Euchratius of Thenae, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics

“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.’” – Vincentius of Thibaris, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics
​

 

[fredoheaven]

[/QUOTE]

In addition to Dr.Wilmington being my mentor from Liberty University, [/QUOTE]

If you consider, Dr. Wilmington as your mentor then probably you still believe and not tired of the scriptural teaching of the Godhead. Three not two...

[/QUOTE]

I have held memberships in the Presbyterian, the Brethren, the Methodist, the Lutheran and the Baptist Churches, [/QUOTE]

This again is pointless. Your age didn’t matter at all to me + your membership even didn’t scare me, unless you are terrorizing little ones, your’s is an old,old enough following mix heretical teachings

[/QUOTE]
Since you claim to have all the answers, let me see you prove the Trinity from the Bible! Review my post #341, which took years of study and research to develop, together with the following:

[/QUOTE]

Genesis 40:8 b… “Do not interpretations belong to God?...” and you’re again proven wrong with your assertions, hoping you may learned “courtesy” for a while