Question...

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I mean how in the world can someone have given a useful or like to rlm68's clear denial of the Triune God in his post above (post 71)????

He just denied the distinction of 2 persons of the Godhead, Christ and the Father!

Post #59
I reread his posts. I can clearly see why he thought as he did. It's obvious in his opinion that he believes Christ is the Father because Jesus claimed in John the Father lives in Him and is doing the works and miracles people see. He is clearly claiming Jesus was the human flesh shell which the Father lived in and did all of the works they were seeing.

I suppose if we take Jesus' words literally in John, Jesus is claiming to be doing nothing. And He further adds the Father lives in Him and is doing and saying everything.

That is clear they are one and the same.

And if we think back then, no one could say, I am God and have people believe it. Maybe that is why God came as Jesus because it would be the only way some would accept Him.

 

[Locutus]

Williams states that,

Reading the Didache one gets the clear impression of a very early Judaeo-Christian church, refreshingly free from the influence of the exalted Christologies of Paul and John. The word ‘God‘ appears 10 times in the work but it never refers to Jesus directly or indirectly.





According to James Tabor, a professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina (USA)

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.

“Doesn’t mention the cross of Christ, doesn’t mention the blood of Jesus, and doesn’t mention forgiving sins through believing in the Lord – nothing like that.”

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.

Have you read the Didache?

James Tabor is relating what is not written in it - no mention of Jesus being divine, so the conclusion is the writers of the Didache did not believe Jesus was divine. Poor argumentation - as much as I like some of his research into the new testament sometimes you have to wonder:

Read the Didache here:

http://www.thedidache.com/

I've read this book by Tabor - interesting read but his conclusions are at times speculative at best:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=CKFUFtnnffgC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq="didache"+divinity+James+Tabor&source=bl&ots=URvXOZkoiq&sig=_Q-kBCDDNncs1b0tMCCkgTqruNE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-wvDbot3eAhUlq4MKHaWUA-UQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q="didache" divinity James Tabor&f=false

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

No, he is claiming the Didache was written when Jesus' family was still alive and they claimed He was not divine. And I have read it. There is no mention of the Resurrection, and nowhere does it actually claim Jesus is God. I am planning on rereading it again because I missed the part of them observing communion but they did not claim the bread was Christ's body or the wine His blood.

 

[Angela53510]

Have you read any of the Didache in Greek? I have! Some of it is just the Bible quoted. Some of it is completely and utterly different than the Bible. And all kinds of things are brought up which are NOT in the Bible. Like an evangelist who stays for more than 2 days or asks for money is a false prophet.

Thinking about that, it's too bad it wasn't in the Bible. That is, inspired! Because if we had those guidelines, none of these false teachers, and tele-evangelists could be collecting money and fleecing the flock.

My point? The Didache is not inspired. It contains the Bible, and instructions to live at the time it was written, and omits other things that can be read about the Bible.

Learn Greek, then read it, before you come here with your half baked wrong conclusions!

 

[Quantrill]

hahaha twist it like you need to...

But, you are claiming that both Peter and Paul, along with the council led by Jesus' brother (James the Just) DISOBEYED Jesus by how we see the original church baptize. I think you are blind. If you think they disobeyed Jesus, then you better toss out Grace and everything else we accept from Peter and Paul. Because I believe how we see Peter and Paul baptizing is how Jesus instructed them to baptize. After Peter denied Jesus and he wept bitterly (repented), no way would he ever disobey Jesus ever again. And if he baptized in name of Jesus, it was because that is what Jesus taught. Therefore, just like the Catholics admit in their Encyclopedia, they did change the original Matthew 28:19.

I just repeated what you said. Good you noted the twisting action in what you said.

No, you are lying. I am not claiming Peter and Paul or the council led by James disobeyed Jesus. You are claiming I am saying that.

Again, the baptism in the verses you gave are in contrast to either being baptized into John's baptism, which was a different baptism, or being baptized into Christ's baptism, the One whom you crucified. This is especially important in (Acts 2:22-40) because it is to the nation Israel. (2:22) "Ye men of Israel" (2:36) "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, who ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (2:38) "...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...."

Nothing here is given as to the exact words to say. What is important here is the identification with Jesus Christ. Before you believing Israelites identified with John. Or, before you unbelieving Israelites rejected and crucified this Christ. Now you must be baptized in His name.

(Matt. 28:19) is emphasizing the Gospel as it goes to the Gentiles. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Catholics have no control over changing the manuscripts.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

This also means, if you believe Peter disobeyed Jesus, then why would you believe Peter and his dream allowing us GENTILES to become members of God's Holy family?

There are so many things we will have to toss out by believing Peter and Paul disobeyed Jesus (God in the flesh). Even our salvation and hope in God has to be tossed out if we believe they disobeyed Jesus!

I don't believe Peter disobeyed. And I believe the command of Christ in (Matt. 28:19).

You have rejected what Christ has said in (Matt. 28:19) because you don't believe in the Trinity. What else in Scripture do you reject? Jesus Baptism?

Quantrill

 

[JohnRH]

I posted earlier with a ? but it said no such page could be found, so I thought I'd try again...


He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Colossians 1:15‭-‬16‭, ‬18‭-‬19 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/col.1.15-19.NASB


Ok here is my question. No wait, let me preface it by making it clear what I am not addressing. I know this scripture makes it perfectly clear…


for it was for the Father's good pleasure that the fullness of Himself to dwell within His son.


I get that Yeshua is a deity. I get that He is of His Father, in a way, that separates Himself from all other, that He was there from the beginning, also that He is the firstborn from the dead, He is a part of the Godhead. As best as I am able to understand it is... the Three are separate but also One.


I have looked at so many translations, and the verse Col 1:15 has me wanting to pick your brains a bit. I hope the question I am about to ask is not offensive but if so, deal with it. Hahaha...jk. Just trying to keep the tone of this thread respectful, lol. I know that I'm talking to a group of far more seasoned than myself (spiritually that is, lol) bible scholars, theologians and apologists, so once again enlighten me with your thoughts on this matter, please.


He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation,
Colossians (Col) 1:15 CJB
https://bible.com/bible/1275/col.1.15.CJB


He is the exact living image [the essential manifestation] of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible], the firstborn [the preeminent one, the sovereign, and the originator] of all creation.
COLOSSIANS 1:15 AMP
https://bible.com/bible/1588/col.1.15.AMP



Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/col.1.15.KJV


I must admit that I'm stumbling a bit with asking this correctly. Is this scripture that seems to suggest that Yeshua was a creation of the Father, the firstborn of every creation, merely addressing the Flesh manifestation of Yeshua?

"Firstborn" is often used as "preeminence" or "first in rank":

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Romans 8:29 ... the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Jesus wasn't the first person ever begotten or born.

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Israel wasn't the first nation born (see the birth of prior nations in Gen. chapter 10).

Jeremiah 31:9 ... for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Ephraim (Manasseh's younger brother) wasn't born first (see Gen. 41:51,52 and Gen. 48:13-20)

Psalm 89:27 27 Also I will make him [David, vs. 20] my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
David wasn't the first king of the earth born.


Colossians 1:15 might tie in with Hebrews 1:2 (... whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds), where "firstborn of every creature" refers to His inheritance rights; and Revelation 5:13 (And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever).

Jesus has the firstborn status "of every creature" (meaning no creatures can claim it - He alone is their 'firstborn').

 

[preacher4truth]

Post #59
I reread his posts. I can clearly see why he thought as he did. It's obvious in his opinion that he believes Christ is the Father because Jesus claimed in John the Father lives in Him and is doing the works and miracles people see. .

You also deny the Trinity, correct? Let's just say it isn't from a lack of comprehension that one misses this fact.

 

[Absolutely]

Post #59
I reread his posts. I can clearly see why he thought as he did. It's obvious in his opinion that he believes Christ is the Father because Jesus claimed in John the Father lives in Him and is doing the works and miracles people see. He is clearly claiming Jesus was the human flesh shell which the Father lived in and did all of the works they were seeing.

I suppose if we take Jesus' words literally in John, Jesus is claiming to be doing nothing. And He further adds the Father lives in Him and is doing and saying everything.

That is clear they are one and the same.

And if we think back then, no one could say, I am God and have people believe it. Maybe that is why God came as Jesus because it would be the only way some would accept Him.

Pentecostal oneness belives that. (Jesus only)

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I just repeated what you said. Good you noted the twisting action in what you said.

No, you are lying. I am not claiming Peter and Paul or the council led by James disobeyed Jesus. You are claiming I am saying that.

Again, the baptism in the verses you gave are in contrast to either being baptized into John's baptism, which was a different baptism, or being baptized into Christ's baptism, the One whom you crucified. This is especially important in (Acts 2:22-40) because it is to the nation Israel. (2:22) "Ye men of Israel" (2:36) "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, who ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (2:38) "...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...."

Nothing here is given as to the exact words to say. What is important here is the identification with Jesus Christ. Before you believing Israelites identified with John. Or, before you unbelieving Israelites rejected and crucified this Christ. Now you must be baptized in His name.

(Matt. 28:19) is emphasizing the Gospel as it goes to the Gentiles. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Catholics have no control over changing the manuscripts.

Quantrill

Here is what you won't address because it's clearly obvious you speak in circles.
99% of what Jesus instructed, demanded, commanded we can find throughout the rest of the New Testament. We see it in the Book of acts throughout Revelation's. What we have never seen in those Books are anyone baptizing in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost. What we do see twice, is people being baptized in the name of Jesus. Now, whether you like it or not, that is a fact. And the fact is the baptisms performed in the Book of Acts were water baptisms like we do today. The difference being is Paul did it in the name of Jesus. No way would Paul ever do that unless the council and the disciples agreed to it. And the Disciples would never agree to anything unless it was OK'd first by Jesus. So the fact the only example of water baptism happening from the Book of Acts to Revelation's was done in the name of Jesus and not the trinity proves the Disciples followed Jesus command. And that is a conclusive point that Matthew 28:19 was changed whether you agree or not!

I 100% believe the Disciples never would do anything but what Jesus instructed them to do. And the fact the head Disciple Peter baptized in Jesus name is concrete proof that he did follow the command of Jesus (because that command was changed in the 2nd century).

Now, if that goes against how you were baptized and taught, maybe it's time for you to grow up and learn the truth!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

The Jew never taught there was an actual hell for sinners. Jesus was a Jew and believed the same thing. But in Luke, we have a story of the hell the Jews and God never claimed that existed. The term for hell in the Hebrew is for the grave, not a literal holding place of lost souls. That clearly is an add on. For one Matthew and Luke mirror each other detail for detail but Matthew has nothing concerning this story of Lazarus and the rich man. Clearly, Jesus never spoke about the rich man and Lazarus.

People began using the Latin language (vulgate) 700 years after Isaiah was here and gone. But in his Book written in Aramaic/Hebrew is a Latin Vulgate word "Lucifer." And once again, Latin Vulgate was not used until 700 years later. So, how did that Latin Vulgate word get in there? And who did speak Latin Vulgate when it was spoken? The Romans who later became the Roman Catholics. Clearly the word Lucifer is an add on.

There are several examples I can provide you. So yes, it is possible and more likely since we have a confession and it is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia...that...Mathew 28:19 was changed.

And their acknowledgement of changing Matthew 28:19 means you are baptized the way the Catholics baptized, not how Jesus taught hahahahahahaha suckers!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

You also deny the Trinity, correct? Let's just say it isn't from a lack of comprehension that one misses this fact.

I do not deny that God works in a way we can see 3 manifestations. I deny that each manifestation of God equal a separate being from one another. From knowing the Torah and understanding how God Himself dealt with His chosen people, God made it clear His Spirit (Holy Spirit) is His personal Spirit in Genesis 6. Jesus made it clear He was I AM. When we read the burning bush from Torah, we see that Jesus is called Elohim who claims to be I AM THAT I AM. And why is that significant that Jesus is known when speaking to Moses as Elohim? Because it proves like the Hebrews defined Elohim to be singular or one, not plural. Elohim was defined as plural 5,000 years later when the Hebrews knew it meant singular the entire time.

Here is the perfect example of Elohim being what He always has been:
Exodus 3:4, "Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush ..."), it behaves like a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel.

Now, why would the Hebrews use Elohim in this scripture since it is clear only 1 person of God is speaking to Moses? Because that is what our God taught them to believe!


Some people will always be blinded by how they were raised. Some people will know the absolute truth. God clearly made it evident to the Hebrews He was One Person. Even God's first commandment is singular, have no other gods before Me. That commandment (having other gods) is a personal attack on God Himself, and God made it clear by His use of Me!


I just don't understand how anyone can call the Hebrews a liar. They dealt with God one on one. None of us on these forums have. That makes them more knowledgeable than us!

The throne room of God has one throne with the Ancient One sitting on it. This has to upset the other 2 persons of God since they are equal to one another!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Pentecostal oneness belives that. (Jesus only)

That is because Pentecostal oneness pay attention to what God taught the Hebrews!

 

[Quantrill]

Here is what you won't address because it's clearly obvious you speak in circles.
99% of what Jesus instructed, demanded, commanded we can find throughout the rest of the New Testament. We see it in the Book of acts throughout Revelation's. What we have never seen in those Books are anyone baptizing in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost. What we do see twice, is people being baptized in the name of Jesus. Now, whether you like it or not, that is a fact. And the fact is the baptisms performed in the Book of Acts were water baptisms like we do today. The difference being is Paul did it in the name of Jesus. No way would Paul ever do that unless the council and the disciples agreed to it. And the Disciples would never agree to anything unless it was OK'd first by Jesus. So the fact the only example of water baptism happening from the Book of Acts to Revelation's was done in the name of Jesus and not the trinity proves the Disciples followed Jesus command. And that is a conclusive point that Matthew 28:19 was changed whether you agree or not!

I 100% believe the Disciples never would do anything but what Jesus instructed them to do. And the fact the head Disciple Peter baptized in Jesus name is concrete proof that he did follow the command of Jesus (because that command was changed in the 2nd century).

Now, if that goes against how you were baptized and taught, maybe it's time for you to grow up and learn the truth!

Go back and reread my post #(265). I have explained your references to Paul and Peter's baptizing in the name of Jesus. You just don't want to hear it.

What is a fact is that (Matt. 28:19) teaches that we are to go to the Gentile nations baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

You didn't answer my question. What other Scripture do you deny that speaks of the Trinity. Christ's baptism?

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Go back and reread my post #(265). I have explained your references to Paul and Peter's baptizing in the name of Jesus. You just don't want to hear it.

What is a fact is that (Matt. 28:19) teaches that we are to go to the Gentile nations baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

You didn't answer my question. What other Scripture do you deny that speaks of the Trinity. Christ's baptism?

Quantrill

I have read it and then reread Acts concerning it. They were water baptized by John the Baptist, then water baptized in the name of Jesus, and immediately after Paul prayed for them and they received the Holy Ghost. Clearly had Paul used the trinity it would be there for us to read. But as we read, he used the name of Jesus. Big difference there.

John did not know about the trinity, so he would not had baptized Jesus that way.
And Paul showed these men that John's baptism was inadequate, which means so was Jesus had He not been God and needed to be our example to be also baptized.

You believe as you like, because you are claiming that repent and be baptized in name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) is not actually being water baptized. You have been baptized in the Catholic tradition of bastardized scripture. I wonder how God actually views that?


The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

the full article:

Evidence against Matthew 28:19 | Carey Bay Church Hall
churchhall.blogspot.com/2010/10/evidence-against-matthew-2819.html
Oct 29, 2010 · Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51 He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism.


The Catholics are positive they changed Matthew 28:19.

Whether you accept it or not, they claim it plus claim to have records of when they did it

Enjoy your Catholic baptism hahahahahaha

 

[Locutus]

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

I've already debunked this - Ratzinger was talking about the apostle's creed:

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Yu do re

I've already debunked this - Ratzinger was talking about the apostle's creed:

I've already debunked this - Ratzinger was talking about the apostle's creed:

hahahaha you do realize both the apostles creed and nicene creed were formed around the 3rd and 4th centuries. That's 2 centuries after what the Catholic Encyclopedia claims.

And what I find even funnier, Is Ratzingberger went onto to claim the trinity was a fabrication. It's obvious he was not debunking anything but furthering that Matthew 28:19 in it's current state is a complete fabrication.

Do you understand what a fabrication is?

A LIE!

hahahahaha

 

[Locutus]

And what I find even funnier, Is Ratzingberger went onto to claim the trinity was a fabrication. It's obvious he was not debunking anything but furthering that Matthew 28:19 in it's current state is a complete fabrication.

You need to find where he said "it's current state is a complete fabrication" from the source (as I did in my post) not just some nitwit on the internet quoting things out of context.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I found probably the most concrete evidence outside personal opinion. These are actual encyclopedia's that copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia claimed. So this knowledge has been around for a very long time.


BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.


BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.


CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. – The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Page 53.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.


HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, “IN THE NAME OF JESUS.” Vol. 2, Page 377.
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378.
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I found probably the most concrete evidence outside personal opinion. These are actual encyclopedia's that copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia claimed. So this knowledge has been around for a very long time.


BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.


BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.


CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. – The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Page 53.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.


HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, “IN THE NAME OF JESUS.” Vol. 2, Page 377.
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378.
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.

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