In The name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost

Have you ever notice this

“And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat. And they said unto him,

Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭18:1-3, 5, 8-10‬ ‭KJV‬‬

you can read the rest but I was just curious if you had noticed those three figures presenting themselves as one even then

I have!
But the LORD is our Jesus in this scenario.
And the Lord here (Jesus) would be ordering the Father-Holy Spirit to go to Sodom.
No one has ever seen the Father in ANY FORM, not even Abraham.

THESE ARE NO DOUBT 2 ANGELS WITH THE WORD/LORD/EVENTUAL YESHUA!

You can't say No One has ever SEEN the FATHER and then toss in Abraham and God with 2 Angels!

After all, Abraham entertained them and Sarah cooked for them.
So 2 people have seen the FATHER in your example.
That is unbiblical knowing NO ONE has ever seen the Father!

That is correct. The pre-incarnate Christ appeared to men in the OT. But no man has seen God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Our magnificent God reveals himself to us, as and when he can without killing us.

Exodus 33

17 And the Lord said to Moses, ‘I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.’

18 Then Moses said, ‘Now show me your glory.’

19 And the Lord said, ‘I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence.
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

20 But,’ he said, ‘you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’

21 Then the Lord said, ‘There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock.

22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.

23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.’

Amen... and then he said.. "The Lord, The Lord God, Merciful and Gracious.
Longsuffering and abounding in goodness and truth
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sins
And that will by no means clear the guilty"

This Mercy and Grace is the Glory of God.
This "and that will by no means clear the guilty" is Jesus dying on the cross so that the guilty can be cleared. This mercy and compassion of God forgiving iniquity is made possible by Jesus Christ dying for us, and this is why we can be cleared from guilt, because "and that will by no means clear the guilty" is a reference to that judicial fact that this Mercy and Grace does not come upon us without that sacrifice of Christ. He does not simply say I forgive iniquity, transgression and sins, with no punishment being paid for it. This Mercy I grant does not clear the guilty. But what then? How is it mercy or forgiveness? Because Jesus paid the price I deserved and therefore He can be just and the justifier of those who believe.

This is the Glory of God. And in so many ways, His Face.

We have the knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ.

It's okay. You're not the only one used to hearing trash all the time. It seems to be a normal thing on here.

What I would truly wish is the regulars not intermingle with those who start arguments at the drop of a hat. All it does is manipulate the regulars to do stuff they wouldn't ordinarily do, as if a spirit is involved to promote bad behavior.

Maybe the reason you & I don't see eye to eye about this is that I don't put much trust in the church fathers from the late 300's on
Afer all, that's about when the roman catholic system started. None of the RCC can be trusted.

It's not like 50 years and 100 years later when the Bible was chosen and the same system of men chose our 66 Books + gave us sorts of Creeds. We should toss the Bible and Creeds based upon your post. And who knows, maybe we should, I don't personally know.

But that was [still] the Lord, who we know as Yahweh and later as Yeshua. Moses could not look upon the face of the literal WORD HIMSELF (John 1:1).

if it to argue it is you, not me, so I will try to ask it again slower for you.

This is your post, you said, nothing,

you posted many verses on Baptism. A person here asked what are you trying to say? or are you just posting verses, you then said to that person,

"What’s your point or question?"


Clearly, they do not understand your post,

yet you respond to them with a rude and dismissive response, which I then told you, it was your post what is your point?

ok so it’s just to argue , it interested

how is not rude and dismissive to ask you what your point was ????? If that offends you partner your going to love a very offended life in this world .

It’s a discussion forum that means that people aren’t always going to agree and say amen brother !!!

listen , it seems like if you want to know what the post is about , possibly read those scriptures in it and then think “ what do all these scriptures say “?

Or maybe just read Matt for Jesus post he got the point and added more scripture and thought to the post .

or maybe a few of the other comments which weren’t meant to argue but discuss what’s in the post

your first comment I wasn’t understanding what you were asking or what your point was lol it seems rather normal to ask you what your point or question was

just in case we’re not clear I didn’t insult or dismiss you , scribe actually sort of explained what he thought you were asking or saying so I had to go that route with him .

it seems as if you have an issue towards me but honestly I’m okay with that . If you don’t see any value in this post I would look for one you do find value in rather than looking for conflict .

the post was never about baptism and insisting on any detail of how one needs baptism that was just something you noticed in the scriptures.

I think that’s probably why it didn’t click what you were talking about and why I asked you . But you know if that’s offensive to you To be asked to clarify what you are asking or what the point of your comment is then I don’t think it would be a good idea to discuss things with me because if I don’t know what you are saying I’ll ask what you are saying or if I don’t understand your point I may ask you to clarify what your getting at

but to me that’s just conversation so it could be a fundamental difference in what you take as offense and what I think is offensive , asking to clarify what someone’s saying when they ask me something is not an offense in my world

And what is the point of posting all those verses?

Wrong. There is only one verse Matthew 28 that say to baptise in the trinity and as we all know, or should know you NEVER form a doctrine on one verse of scripture.

Every other reference in scripture is baptism in the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ. So one has to find out why Matt 28 is different, not say that is the basis for baptism as it is clear that it isn't. If it was, why did the New Testament Church baptise in the name of Jesus and not the trinity?

Until you can answer that question, your claim is invalid.

That one verse is more than enough to establish the truth about Christian baptism and the Holy Trinity. Those are the recorded words of the Risen Lord just before His ascension to Heaven. Something not to be dismissed lightly.

And all the Greek manuscripts have this as genuine Scripture. Therefore ABSOLUTELY EVERY TRANSLATION has that verse, and both the Critical and the Received texts have it also.

CRITICAL TEXT
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

RECEIVED TEXT
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

God is one, yet eternally present as three divine persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Christian baptism is in the Name of the Godhead, since there are three that bear witness (or record) in Heaven -- the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost (1 John 5:7). And these three are ONE.

The triune Godhead is presented in the first verse of the Bible, where the Hebrew word Elohim is a uniplural word. Thus God said "Let US make man in OUR image, and in OUR likeness". And since the Holy Trinity was present at the baptism of Christ, it is more than fitting that true believers be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Indeed some Christian groups go so far as to practice "trine-immersion" -- three immersions, one for each person within the Godhead.

NOTICE YOUR SCRIPTURE REFERENCE YOU'RE USING HERE FROM THE GREEK ITSELF:

CRITICAL TEXT
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

RECEIVED TEXT
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος



NOW, LET'S TOSS IN THE [FACTUAL HISTORICAL MONKEY WRENCH] INTO THIS MIXTURE:

If you were to [GOOGLE] Church Fathers/Ancient Historians the [Original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew], you would get literally 10 solid names like Tertulian, Iraneaus, literally a bunch of solid Names VERIFYING that Matthew was actually first written in Hebrew.

But, have you ever read the [Most authentic Hebrew Version of Matthew 28?

Here is the Ending to that Version for Matthew 28"
17 When they saw him they worshipped him, but there were some of them who doubted him.
18 Jesus drew near to them and said to them: To me has been given all power in heaven and earth.
19 Go
20 and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.




LIST OF ((some of the most well known)) NAMES CONFIRMING MATTHEW WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW ORIGINALLY:

1) Testimony of Papias

2) Eusebius 3.39.16
“But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: ‘So then Matthew {{{{{wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language}}}}}, and every one interpreted them as he was able.’”

3) Polycarp (Disciple of the Apostle John)

4) Irenaeus (Disciple of the Apostle John and Polycarp)

5) Testimony of Pantaenus

6) Testimony of Epiphanius

7) Testimony of Tertullian

8) Testimony of Augustine

9) Justin Martyr

10) Testimony of Jerome

11) Leo the Great





If we go by History, Matthew was originally written in HEBREW!
We can say [THIS IS A FACT]!

But Matthew 28:19 in the TRUE ORIGINAL HEBREW reads:
{19 Go
20 and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.}

Tell me, with Everyone confirming Matthew, the Disciple/Apostle of Christ, wrote his Book in Hebrew, how did the Greek translate Baptize in the NAME OF THE FATHER-SON-HOLY-SPIRIT <<< all that ( 9 WORDS) from Matthews true verse 19 of the [SINGLE WORD] "GO?"



When they translated the Hebrew Matthew to Greek, how did they get [Baptize in the NAME OF THE FATHER-SON-HOLY-SPIRIT] from the single word "GO?"

How is that even possible?

However there is no "authentic" or otherwise Hebrew translation from Matthew in extant. Therefore it is impossible to mount an argument based on the text of a manuscript that does not exist.

It seems you are attempting to perform textual criticism on a phantom manuscript on phantom texts. You have nothing and your argument results in nothing.

You can only stand on what does exist and the doctrine of inspiration of Scriptures in the original autographs has always depended on the copies of the manuscripts in extant. At the time of these early church writers they had no such Hebrew copy of Matthew in extant, only a theory. The only scripture anyone has ever had of Matthew has been the Greek.

In your searches on the hypothesis that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, did you discount all the data that says that that hypothesis has been discounted by most scholars because the information did not convince you, or because you did not like it?

The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (or proto-Gospel hypothesis or Aramaic Matthew hypothesis) is a group of theories based on the proposition that a lost gospel, written in the Hebrew language or the Aramaic language, lies behind the four canonical gospels. It is based upon an early Christian tradition, deriving from the 2nd-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, that Matthew the Apostle composed such a gospel. Papias appeared to say that this Hebrew or Aramaic gospel was subsequently translated into the canonical Gospel of Matthew, but modern studies have shown this to be untenable.[1] Modern variants of the hypothesis survive, but have not found favor with scholars as a whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebre...rch Fathers,the circumcision who had believed.

How it is written in the Hebrew:

19: ללכת
20: ו (מלמדים) אותם לבצע את כל הדברים אשר ציוויתי עליך לנצח.

Verse 19 is a single word [ללכת].
How does [ללכת = GO] end up becoming 9 words of Baptism?