Hallowed Be Thy Name

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 Of course Eusebius was and is my star witness until he abandoned the true faith as recorded in historical documents.
As a true Arian, Eusebius was into altering verses to his satisfaction. Muslims and Unitarians have the exact same compulsion. Once he was cured of his Arianism then he went back to respecting the original verses.
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.
The Didache is way closer to the originals than Eusebius' writings could ever hope to be. Of course you immediately tossed the Didache out the window. You go to the head of the Muslim/Unitarian/Arian class as far as scoffing at the original word of God is concerned.
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.
I didn't ignore anything. You have yet to prove that there was any tampering of the verse. You claimed that happened, prove it!
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.
You continue to base your proofs on non-existant people. Your Muslim/Unitarian/Arian class professor will be so proud of your determination to believe in non-existant people, all for the sake of promoting the illusion that the word of God is corrupted.
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.
So you don't have to prove anything more? You haven't proved anything yet. You're right, "this game is over".
 
Yeah, so?
Exclamations are not statements of fact. I watched the US Open semi's last night. During one amazing exchange, I exclaimed "Oh my God!" I was not actually supposing an exchange of a tennis ball between 2 men is actually my God, the real God or everyone's God. You obviously know that and this is so, why Thomas statement being an exclamation matters and cannot be used as a reasonable "support" statement for your false doctrine.

Like all trinitarians attempts to apply Biblical verses, it is a desperate reach. I don't have to do that, by contrast. Direct quoting of explicit Scripture suffices for me. There is one God, the Father. This means Jesus is not God. So simple, even a trinitarian can understand it.
 
Exclamations are not statements of fact.


It is when Jesus didn't correct it like He did with their misunderstanding in Luke 24:37-38.

Thanks once again for making this so easy for me.

I watched the US Open semi's last night. During one amazing exchange, I exclaimed "Oh my G--!"

What an anachronistic and pitiful misunderstanding of what a first century Jew said and what people so flippantly say today.

If that is your excuse for rejecting what John 20:28 teaches you need more help than I thought.
 
There is one God, the Father. This means Jesus is not God.

There is one Lord, Jesus Christ. Does this mean the Father is not the Christian's Lord (cf. Acts 4:29)?

Your assertion is contradictory, because if Jesus isn't God then that means the Father isn't the Christian's Lord.
 
As a true Arian, Eusebius was into altering verses to his satisfaction. Muslims and Unitarians have the exact same compulsion. Once he was cured of his Arianism then he went back to respecting the original verses.

The Didache is way closer to the originals than Eusebius' writings could ever hope to be. Of course you immediately tossed the Didache out the window. You go to the head of the Muslim/Unitarian/Arian class as far as scoffing at the original word of God is concerned.

I didn't ignore anything. You have yet to prove that there was any tampering of the verse. You claimed that happened, prove it!

You continue to base your proofs on non-existant people. Your Muslim/Unitarian/Arian class professor will be so proud of your determination to believe in non-existant people, all for the sake of promoting the illusion that the word of God is corrupted.

So you don't have to prove anything more? You haven't proved anything yet. You're right, "this game is over".
Just one last mention of this discussion, of my star Eusebius before he turned away from true monotheism into to the dark pagan art of compromise of his once true faith, soon after his attendance at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

This is a quote of his concerning Matthew 28:19. It is a very close translation of the Shem Tov manuscript and the Greek Manuscript he quoted from.......

Verse 19: Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations in my name, and 20: teaching them all that I have commanded you.

And in his name, of his Son, is the only way the Father brings his Spirit to the new believer from the time of Pentecost and on. We do not believe in any other name for salvation, because just in believing in Jesus' name alone, automatically means we believe that the Father gave his Son this authority to bring/request the Father's Spirit into the hearts of believers. Jesus did not need permission at this point.

--------and as @Wrangler already said in his own terms, by voicing or writing the Father, his Spirit and his Son does zero for any support or proof that a Trinity model is actually real.
 
Just one last mention of this discussion, of my star Eusebius before he turned away from true monotheism into to the dark pagan art of compromise of his once true faith, soon after his attendance at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

This is a quote of his concerning Matthew 28:19. It is a very close translation of the Shem Tov manuscript and the Greek Manuscript he quoted from.......

Verse 19: Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations in my name, and 20: teaching them all that I have commanded you.

And in his name, of his Son, is the only way the Father brings his Spirit to the new believer from the time of Pentecost and on. We do not believe in any other name for salvation, because just in believing in Jesus' name alone, automatically means we believe that the Father gave his Son this authority to bring/request the Father's Spirit into the hearts of believers. Jesus did not need permission at this point.

--------and as @Wrangler already said in his own terms, by voicing or writing the Father, his Spirit and his Son does zero for any support or proof that a Trinity model is actually real.
Here is the English translation of Matt 28:18-19 of the Shem Tob manuscripts:

18 Jesus drew near to them and said to them: To me has been given all power in heaven and earth.
19 Go and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.

Source:

There is no mention of "in my name" nor any other name whatsoever in that manuscript. So what is it that you want us to do? Must we do baptisms in Jesus' name or an undefined way? You are horribly confused. Please stop embarrasing yourself.
 
Last edited:
Well I see as usually is the case I have to show you more evidence as if what you think is already edged in stone, rather than you show me yours as your proof, and you don't have any.
While trinitarians distract you with demands of proof, the pudding is seen in the fact that they don't have rejection criteria. @Fred did present extraordinarily unreasonable rejection criteria, deliberately designed as a back door means of "supporting" his doctrine. Of course, they don't apply the same impossible to meet rejection criteria for their inherently contradictory doctrine.

Here they invoke Appeal to False Alternative. Since non-trinitarians cannot "prove" the trinity is wrong, the default position is to automatically accept the flawed, anti-Scriptural doctrine.
 
Last edited:
God has many names, titles and descriptions in both Testaments.
Another bite at this apple.

This is simply not true. Only Ex 3:15 actually uses the word "name" of God. Such Trinitarian claim reminds me of the movie Rocky, where the champion's many nicknames are listed: the master of disaster, the king of sting, etc. His one and only name is Apollo Creed.

The same with YHWH. "God" is not a personal name any more than our name is Man.
 
Another bite at this apple.

This is simply not true. Only Ex 3:15 actually uses the word "name" of God. Such Trinitarian claim reminds me of the movie Rocky, where the champion's many nicknames are listed: the master of disaster, the king of sting, etc. His one and only name is Apollo Creed.

The same with YHWH. "God" is not a personal name any more than our name is Man.
So the Father is not the True Theos ( God ) .

Good to know. The entire new testament got that one wrong I guess since it was written in GREEK not hebrew.

hope this helps !!!
 
Here is the English translation of Matt 28:18-19 of the Shem Tob manuscripts:

18 Jesus drew near to them and said to them: To me has been given all power in heaven and earth.
19 Go and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.

Source:

There is no mention of "in my name" nor any other name whatsoever in that manuscript. So what is it that you want us to do? Must we do baptisms in Jesus' name or an undefined way? You are horribly confused. Please stop embarrasing yourself.
Ok, one more time because you deliberately avoid the essence of the truth in my posts for reasons I do know and you well know of course.

Here's the Shem Tob Manuscript of that area in Matthew....


1694351421749.png 1694351445767.png

Let me have to explain it to once more time; I said my star E, 'closely' not exactly, mirrored the ST Manuscript right? I assume you read that part and then forgot about it as if it did not exist and attempted to twist and alter my mind for me.

My star player E. placed his version along side or into the TB Manuscript and generated what I wrote.

You know you ignore the fact that there is NO Trinity doctrine enshrined in Matt 28:19 at all. I can see why you run or deflect from this point every time it is mentioned.

And to embarrassments, I leave that to the reader to choose who is being honest and who is trying to just hang on with empty words and the avoidance of truth and hope something will stick for the home team, the troubled Trinitarians.

As a side note: you do know that 'for ever' means to the end of the age right, as the last couple of words of Matthew.

And if you do not like my words here are some of the same form another source....https://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html

1694352015511.png

1694352072126.png

With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157)

Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” — (Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159)

In Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read, “relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.

And in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read, “Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates between Arias and the pagan view of Athanasius that became the trinity doctrine. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest you? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3 “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

1 Corinthians 1:13 “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” [Implied]

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

So should Matthew 28:19 read “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” or “baptizing them in My name.” And based on your conclusion, which of the following is correct?

Colossians 2:12 “Buried with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in baptism, wherein also you are risen with them through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised them from the dead.
OR
Colossians 2:12 “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead.

In conclusion, Matthew 28:19 does not prove or disprove the Trinity doctrine and you will have to decide for yourself if this text belongs as it cannot be proven conclusively one way or the other. But Scripture certainly strongly indicates that baptism should be in the name of Christ as all examples reveal.

The reason we are baptized in the name of Christ is because we are baptized “into” Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of His death, burial and resurrection.

You know Syn. just thinking about it more, you might need a new set glasses or lens to see with, not only my words, also what these sources and scripture is telling you....there is no Trinity in Matt 28:19. ....I would move on if I were you.....just saying
 
While trinitarians distract you with demands of proof, the pudding is seen in the fact that they don't have rejection criteria. @Fred did present extraordinarily unreasonable rejection criteria, deliberately designed as a back door means of "supporting" his doctrine. Of course, they don't apply the same impossible to meet rejection criteria for their inherently contractor doctrine.

Here they invoke Appeal to False Alternative. Since non-trinitarians cannot "prove" the trinity is wrong, the default position is to automatically accept the flawed, anti-Scriptural doctrine.
And they accept this lie with vigor. Go figure that one out. it's a mystery, an incomprehensible god they keep telling everyone. Well I believe in a personal and comprehensible God, YHWH out Father and Creator.
 
n conclusion, Matthew 28:19 does not prove or disprove the Trinity doctrine
It certainly does NOT proof it as Matthew 28:19 is NOT an equivalent expression to the trinity doctrine.

When one search the Scriptures, one must conclude what is the holy name of God that Jesus referred to on Sermon on the Mount. It cannot be or include himself. We know this with absolute certainty based on 2 facts:
  1. Jesus said to pray to the Father (not himself or 3).
  2. Jesus identified the Being we are to pray to as in heaven while Jesus was on Earth.
Understandably wanting to distract from this in Matthew 6, trinitarians want to sweep it away and doctrinally invest in Matthew 28 instead. For the purposes of this conversation, Matthew 6:9 does not exist; only Matthew 28:19 exists for trinitarians. Talk about cherry picking and taking verses out of context!
 
Your go to expression because nothing else works.

It doesn't either.
LOL There is only one God the Father. So clear, even a trinitarian can understand it. IF 1 Corinthians 8:6 stated, "For us, there is only one God in 3 persons ..." you would not resort to all this back door rationalizations.

Ex 3:15 is explicit, God's eternal name is YHWH - not Jesus. If Ex 3:15 said in 1700 years I will come in the flesh and be name Jesus, you would not resort to all this back door rationalizations.

As it is, there is one God the Father, whose name YHWH Jesus tells us to keep holy - meaning set apart, even from Jesus. This is why there is the ubiquitous juxtaposing of God from Jesus in Scripture.
 
So the Father is not the True Theos ( God ) .

Good to know. The entire new testament got that one wrong I guess since it was written in GREEK not hebrew.
How you come to that from what I wrote is a mystery for the ages. The exact opposite is true; the father - and only the Father is the true God, according to Jesus.
 
Back
Top Bottom