Wrangler
Well-known member
Not an answer to the Apostles disobedience. Projecting again rather than look inward as one back door attempt to rationalize your false doctrine fails after another.
No response to APAK's research?
Hallowed Be Thy Name
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
No disobedience. It's on Jesus Christ's authority, by virtue of the Cross, that we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
The onus is still on you to prove that Matt 28:19 was changed and you failed miserably. You said it prove it.
It's no surprise that you have no counterargument to what I replied to APAK.
APAK
Active member
There is zero concrete evidence that Didache, even with an earlier text of some kind, represented or copied the original text of Matthew. It may have been notes personal notes of his own creation as many provided. Whilst we do know Eusebius saw and had if not an original, a copy of the original Matthew text. He would be more of a reliable witness imo.
And further, why do two other Gospel writers not cite this trinity formula in their great commission text.
This has to count for strong evidence that the TF was a later official insertion by the RCC. This is not the first time they added in or modified scripture, especially in the NT.
Luke 24:44-53
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for[a] the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (ESV)
Mark 14: 16-18
14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (ESV)
Well, Eusebius wrote the following which proves my case:
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, ‘GO, TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST,'” (Eusebius’ Letter to the Church in Caesarea to the people of his Diocese; June, 325)
Not every Apostle mirrors exactly what the other Apostles wrote. I'm sure you know that. This shows your desperation.
I keep telling you that the RCC did not exist at the time when this imagined act occurred.
Wonderful verses about Pentecost that perfectly aligns with Trinitarianism. It's always by Jesus Christ's authority by that which is performed by his followers. In the same way it's by Christ's authority, by virtue of the Cross, that we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The onus was on you to prove that Matt 28:19 was changed and you have yet to do so.
Wonderful verses about powerful signs manifested by believers. That perfectly aligns with Trinitarianism.
Again, it's always by Jesus Christ's authority by that which is performed by his followers. In the same way it's by Jesus Christ's authority, by virtue of the Cross, that we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The onus was on you to prove that Matt 28:19 was changed and you have yet to do so.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-known member
Yes. Your rationalizations are ridiculous. God’s eternal name is YHWH - not Jesus.
Wrangler
Well-known member
There is no trinity in Scripture. The best you got is baptism, which does not even mention God or his hallowed name - let alone his nature OR believing a contradiction is a condition of salvation!
Last edited:
Your total inability to offer any valid counterargument is ridiculous.
Here in the south we say that if it's good enough for Paul then it's good enough for me.
You can register any grievance you have against any Apostles at your nearest Church.
The best I got is John 1 followed by the rest of the NT and the entire OT. Any grievance you have against any Apostle can be registered at your nearest Church.
What is the world are you ranting about?
APAK
Active member
As you said....'Well, Eusebius wrote the following which proves my case:'
Again S. as you know what you quoted was a letter to his diocese and not necessarily of Matthew. This is a big difference. And he was promoting and spreading his primitive Trinitarian wings in the process.
Read his opening statement of this letter you quoted that deliberately shows some/the context...you must see the context else one is drives blind.
"Beloved, since rumors usually travel faster than accurate information, you have probably learned from other sources what happened concerning the church’s faith at the Great Council assembled at Nicaea. As we do not want the facts to be misrepresented by such reports, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith which we ourselves [i.e. Eusebius] presented, and next, the second, which the assembled fathers put forth with some additions to our words...." and then he says..."“We report now to you our faith, which we have received from the bishops who preceded us..."
He completely changed his thoughts at least by this time biased toward a political-religious belief even of baptism based on a political-religious Council at Nicaea. This is no proof as you said there was proof, that he quoted any original Matthew text. In fact it leaned(s) more towards the opposite, not having Matthew in mind at all. He bought into the Trinitarian lie by this time....
You see Eusebius was already affected and left his first earlier statements about faith and baptism in Jesus only, and favored the outcome of the Nicaea Council. He was swayed and was by then a devout Trinitarian all the way. He believed in the Trinitarian formula by then....he bought into it and not based on scripture either.
He was also already rehearsing and quoting a primitive form of a Trinitarian Creed as you know. I used him because his spoke earlier in time of only baptism by/in the Son only, as in many other parts of the text of the NT. Not one place in the NT quotes a Trinitarian formula, not one. And so your proof still is very fluid and gray. It cannot be anything definitive.
And no there's no desperation at all in my words, just assertive support. And there's plenty of wishful thinking on your part I still see, as you comment on the other Great Commission versions. Perfectly aligned with Trinitarian indeed, as the blind man would say.... you must support your statement S. else I will ignore it and so should or would you.
In Luke's Great Commission version who do you think the Father truly is, and why does his Son send for him only? And why does he not name the Holy Spirit for anything? Fair short ??? right?
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-known member
Yea right! The trinity is not in the Bible. It is you who have no capacity to defend your position in any manner, shape or form. Scripture say YHWH is the name of the God of Jesus, God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob; this is the only true God.
You are truth to pretend there is any possible way to interpret and Scripture verse that supersedes this explicit Scripture.
Regarding YHWH’s servant, Jesus; Scripture explicitly says he is OF God. For no apparent, you pretend ‘OF’ means is. That Jesus is not God is demonstrable. Jesus died. It’s how one can know with absolute certainty that he is not God.
To all this, you ignore and reach for the most desperate rationalizations.
Wrangler
Well-known member
I agree it is the best you got, which is nothing since you are denying John’s purpose is to prove something other than he is God; namely, that Jesus is the son of God. John 20:31.
It is from this perspective that you must interpret John 1.
IF John 20:31 explained he wrote to prove the trinity, you might have something. As it is, John 1 is evidence against the trinity - even if your claim were true. ‘Jesus is God’ is an anti-trinitarian statement. Why? The man-is-god thesis, a trinity does not make.
First you promote Eusebius as your star witness and now you make excuses for him, assassinating him in the process. Wonderful ironclad case you've drawn up so far.
Praise God that he was cured of Arianism. That could very well account for the fact that he started to accurately quote the Bible. He acquired a new profound reverence for the actual word of God - unlike unitarians who falsely accuse the word of God as being altered. You know, Muslims have the same tactics. They blatantly accuse the word of God as being corrupted. In that sense, Unitarians and Muslims are a match made in you know what.
As you have yet to prove any tampering of that verse, everything you claim is pure speculation.
You do know that the RCC did not exist at that time? Then how could that imagined tampering be accomplished by an entity that did not exist?
Your inability to offer any counterargument speaks volumes.
Whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father. They plud the Holy Spirit are of the same one essence and that's why there is only one true God.
It's not in your Bible because you have ripped that verse out of the Bible for no other reason than it's another verse that proves Trinitarianism.
The onus is still on you to prove that Matt 28:19 was changed and you failed miserably. You said it, prove it.
Thanks so much for pointing out that verse again and again! John 20:31 is immediately after and summarizes the importance of us believing that Jesus is "my God!".
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
John 20:29 Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed.
APAK
Active member
I'm surprised you made this first point at all. It seems you have run out of bullets and you are the one appealing in desperation for surrender and mercy
. Of course Eusebius was and is my star witness until he abandoned the true faith as recorded in historical documents. I used him and after all he was the closest we have in recorded history of touching seeing the original Matthew text, and absent was this trinitarian formula at that time. As I said also, he wrote that baptism is in his name, or Jesus' name only, as in several other scriptures in the NT.Of course I then dumped him and ran him under the bus, especially because you chose to selectively share the body of the letter he wrote to his folks, and I believe deliberately ignored sharing the intro that I made you aware of. Eusebius became a diehard Trinitarian around or after the 325 Council of Nicaea, period. And in fact it points more directly and heavily in favor of him and some others later changing the Matthew text to the Trinity formula in the 4th century. He thus was part of the smoking gun if you will. And that is why there are numerous quotes from other source, old and recent even the RCC who say the Trinity Formula is a clear forgery. And keep pointing out that RCC was formally established later is a red herring in these arguments.
And to your idea that I still have to prove anything more on this subject. If that is the case then you are already drowning in despair without any encouraging of appealing evidence whatsoever. Based on what I consider I have it is the preponderance of at least circumstantial evident and I think this game is over.
And your vague and incorrect answer to one of my questions at the end of my post says you either do not understand my question or you really cannot answer it.
'Whoever has seen the son has seen the Father...' does not cut it S. This is misplaces and not applicable.This part statement has zero to do with the Luke's Great Commission statement.
What it means is that Luke is stating that the promise of the Father, himself, is via the Father giving of himself, He promised to give HIS own Holy Spirit (partial functional power at least to perform specific task and miracles) to each believer at Pentecost and beyond. The Father is Spirit and therefore has a Spirit and it's called HIS own one and only Holy Spirit. The Father and his Spirit count as ONLY One person, not two. And in other scripture this Spirit of the Father is called the Comforter or Helper or the Spirit of Truth. So seeing the Trinity in Luke or even in Mark and Matthew is delusional thinking and a dream that will never come true.
Wrangler
Well-known member
I did prove it. Matt 28:19 is not something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. You just want to pretend it is.
Wrangler
Well-known member
What a rationalization. Nowhere is it written that Jesus is God or we ought to consider him our God. That Thomas said my god is an exclamation. That you pretend it is more that shows how there is no actual support for what you claim.
Think about how you take this thread, whose OP is about the hallowed name of God and you go to baptism, which have nothing to do with keeping God's holy name.
Yeah, so?
He spoke the truth more forcefully.
Perhaps it can also reach in to those whose ears and hearts that are closed to what he expressed.
The name of Jesus is equally holy.
Revelation 15:4
Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For You alone are holy;
For all the nations will come and worship before You,
For Your righteous acts have been revealed.
All are to fear in reference to Jesus.
Colossians 3:22 (phobeō)
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
All are to glory and worship in reference to Jesus.
Revelation 5:11-14
(11) Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands,
(12) saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
(13) And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
(14) And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.
All the nations worshiping Jesus.
Revelation 7:9-10
(9) After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
(10) and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
Last edited:
Jesus' response to Thomas' statement was "you have believed". Any grievances you have against Jesus' acceptance of Thomas' declaration can be filed at your nearest Church.
This is the last time I'm going to ask you for evidence that supports your claim that Matt 28:19 was changed.
