All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Peterlag]

Even if the 6 instances that LUke mentions of bapitism in the name of Jesus represents the only way people baptized in the first century, that does not mean that error was not undone by the second century. Amazing how much unitarians work to deny Christ.

I think what you just said was that the Catholics in the second century fixed the error that the Apostles were involved in concerning how to baptize.

 

[Runningman]

Does it say "begotten" Son, or "only" Son in your translation? Begotten is accurate, only is inaccurate. Therefore, that translation is in error.

Does 1 John 5:7 include "these three are one" in your translation, or is it omitted? If omitted, that translation is in error as well. Satan has been attacking God's Word since the garden, so I test to see if I have the real deal or a counterfeit.

Conclusion & point... I don't trust a translation as the written Word of God having that major of an error in it.

William Tyndale Bible 1534 New Testament:
https://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Tyndale/62/5

I wanted to add that the best translators of King James's day got it right, begotten. William Tyndale only wanted the entire Bible, both OT & NT, to be translated into the English language so that English speaking people could hold their very own copy in their hands. Why is another story, but the job of Westcott & Hort was to counter-attack the Protestants.

So you agree that Jesus as the Son of God is begotten offspring?

Also, the jury is out on1 John 5:7. Whether or not the people who translated the Bible had salvation or not is not really the point. The point is they had intellectual and scholarly honestly and removed 1 John 5:7 from the Bible because it's a blatant forgery. It isn't just publishers who support this, but 1 John 5:7 being removed from the Bible has widespread support among Catholics and Protestants. 1 John 5:7 isn't Scripture and doesn't belong in the Bible. And why do you want it in the Bible anyway? It doesn't contain the Trinitarian formula.

I think I see where you are coming from, though. You have your scholars, sources, publishers, and versions/translations that you prefer.

Why do you think Catholics would want Protestants to not believe in the trinity?

 

[Runningman]

Does it say "begotten" Son, or "only" Son in your translation? Begotten is accurate, only is inaccurate. Therefore, that translation is in error.

Does 1 John 5:7 include "these three are one" in your translation, or is it omitted? If omitted, that translation is in error as well. Satan has been attacking God's Word since the garden, so I test to see if I have the real deal or a counterfeit.

Conclusion & point... I don't trust a translation as the written Word of God having that major of an error in it.

William Tyndale Bible 1534 New Testament:
https://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Tyndale/62/5

I wanted to add that the best translators of King James's day got it right, begotten. William Tyndale only wanted the entire Bible, both OT & NT, to be translated into the English language so that English speaking people could hold their very own copy in their hands. Why is another story, but the job of Westcott & Hort was to counter-attack the Protestants.

Can I ask a question, do you prefer the KJV?

 

[mikesw]

I think what you just said was that the Catholics in the second century fixed the error that the Apostles were involved in concerning how to baptize.

It could mean they were correcting the impression left by the writer of Acts. The problem with the unitarian twist is taking the six instances to deny what Jesus said. That is the common tactic of unitarian arguments

 

[Peterlag]

It could mean they were correcting the impression left by the writer of Acts. The problem with the unitarian twist is taking the six instances to deny what Jesus said. That is the common tactic of unitarian arguments

If you think the Catholics corrected the error of the Apostles. Then I have no further desire to converse with you.

cc: @Runningman

 

[mikesw]

If you think the Catholics corrected the error of the Apostles. Then I have no further desire to converse with you.

cc: @Runningman

since you fail to recognize the words of Jesus, I can comprehend your lack of desire to continue. The additional problem is you fail to listen to what followers of Christ have shared.

 

[Peterlag]

since you fail to recognize the words of Jesus, I can comprehend your lack of desire to continue. The additional problem is you fail to listen to what followers of Christ have shared.

I did not say anything about failing to recognize the words of Jesus. I said I fail to recognize the words of the Catholics who you say we need to correct the Apostles.

 

[mikesw]

I did not say anything about failing to recognize the words of Jesus. I said I fail to recognize the words of the Catholics who you say we need to correct the Apostles.

Then do not complain about the trinity name for baptism in Matt 28:19-20. You cannot deny Jesus' words while assuming that Luke's description of baptisms in six instances reveal the whole story. That contradicts what you established as a rule.

 

[Runningman]

since you fail to recognize the words of Jesus, I can comprehend your lack of desire to continue. The additional problem is you fail to listen to what followers of Christ have shared.

What Peter says is also my experience with you. I remember we have discussed before how you believe the words of the Bible are inadequate to discuss the trinity, therefore you have to introduce your own vocabulary to explain what the Bible does not. In essence, you do think the Catholics are correcting the alleged errors of God, Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles. They didn't talk like you do and they were fine. Could you discuss your religion using only the words of the Bible?

 

[Runningman]

Then do not complain about the trinity name for baptism in Matt 28:19-20. You cannot deny Jesus' words while assuming that Luke's description of baptisms in six instances reveal the whole story. That contradicts what you established as a rule.

The trinity is missing from Matt 28:19-20 it doesn't say they are one God. Also, no one baptized following that formula. That verse was probably altered. Not enough evidence, but all fingers point to yes.

 

[Peterlag]

Then do not complain about the trinity name for baptism in Matt 28:19-20. You cannot deny Jesus' words while assuming that Luke's description of baptisms in six instances reveal the whole story. That contradicts what you established as a rule.

I'm not complaining. I said Matthew 28:19 is not even a real verse. Here I will post it again...

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in thename of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

And concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

 

[Peterlag]

The trinity is missing from Matt 28:19-20 it doesn't say they are one God. Also, no one baptized following that formula. That verse was probably altered. Not enough evidence, but all fingers point to yes.

 

[mikesw]

I'm not complaining. I said Matthew 28:19 is not even a real verse. Here I will post it again...

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in thename of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

And concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

Wow. Lots of commentary on six mentions of baptism in contradictions of Matt 28:29. Reminds me of the one-verse unitarians. Maybe you know that "catholics" must means the followers of Christ. Other interpretations are not from catholics.

 

[Runningman]

View attachment 2373

There is an interesting account of a man named Eusebius of Caesarea (260–339) who, when referring to Matthew 28:19-20, always said “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name..." before the Council of Nicaea. After the council of Nicaea he began using the full version in modern Bibles. Not definitive, but it suggests he may have had access to an earlier version of Matthew 28:19-20 that has been since lost to time.

That may explain why no one actually ever baptized anyone in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" but rather only in the name of Jesus did they baptize. Either they straight up disobeyed Jesus, or Matthew 28:19-20 doesn't mean what Trins say it means, or it could be an alteration. Not far fetched at all. The Bible manuscripts were different depending on which region or sect they originated from.

 

[Peterlag]

There is an interesting account of a man named Eusebius of Caesarea (260–339) who, when referring to Matthew 28:19-20, always said “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name..." before the Council of Nicaea. After the council of Nicaea he began using the full version in modern Bibles. Not definitive, but it suggests he may have had access to an earlier version of Matthew 28:19-20 that has been since lost to time.

That may explain why no one actually ever baptized anyone in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" but rather only in the name of Jesus did they baptize. Either they straight up disobeyed Jesus, or Matthew 28:19-20 doesn't mean what Trins say it means, or it could be an alteration. Not far fetched at all. The Bible manuscripts were different depending on which region or sect they originated from.

We have to look at the scope of the entire Bible. One verse cannot contradict 800 hundred other verses on the same subject. Trinitartians are famous for doing just that. Matthew 28:19 does not fit with the rest of the Bible.

 

[Peterlag]

Wow. Lots of commentary on six mentions of baptism in contradictions of Matt 28:29. Reminds me of the one-verse unitarians. Maybe you know that "catholics" must means the followers of Christ. Other interpretations are not from catholics.

I look at the scope of the entire Bible. One verse cannot contradict 800 hundred other verses on the same subject. Trinitartians are famous for doing just that. Matthew 28:19 does not fit with the rest of the Bible.

 

[e v e]

What’s modern Christianity?

So are you saying you’re not a Christian?

s e l a h

where did i say i am not christian.

didnt find it.

 

[e v e]

Esau wrote a book? Where’s it at?

s e l a h

the kjv

 

[mikesw]

I look at the scope of the entire Bible. One verse cannot contradict 800 hundred other verses on the same subject. Trinitartians are famous for doing just that. Matthew 28:19 does not fit with the rest of the Bible.

that rejection of verses is the common approach taken by people who do not understand a passage.

 

[Runningman]

We have to look at the scope of the entire Bible. One verse cannot contradict 800 hundred other verses on the same subject. Trinitartians are famous for doing just that. Matthew 28:19 does not fit with the rest of the Bible.

Couldn't agree more. It breaks the style of the entire Bible concerning baptism.