Hallowed Be Thy Name

[Wrangler]

And they accept this lie with vigor.

So it is with all IDOLS - sex, drugs, money, power, etc. The devotion to the IDOL is something to behold. Fanaticism comes to mind.

 

[Fred]

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.

Then go ahead and explain how Jesus can be BOTH the High Priest (Hebrews 3:1) and the sacrifice (Hebrews 9:26) according to what you think is logical when these two were never properly the same in the OT.

 

[APAK]

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!

They ignore scripture that very clearly, in simple explicit language speaks to the Father only as the one true God. I do not have a problem with Jesus be as God for his Father's will and desires. To make him also the same God, one person of the Father is incredible and unbelievable.

So they pick apart only scripture 'they see' a loop hole in. Then they begin to pick it apart, twist it, hammer at it and reshape it to fit, like forcing a round peg into a square hole. And when it is all said and done, confusion and chaos is left in its wake, as the same for their god of confusion.

 

[Wrangler]

See post 87.

Will save that post for you.

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.

Total nonsense. You keep ignoring the Holy Spirit in your feeble defense of the inherently contradictory doctrine of the trinity. It's like if you can only get someone to accept Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit comes along for the ride, free of charge.

There is hierarchy in Scripture, which we'd expect from a God or Order. 1 COR 11:3, 15:23-27. It's like saying for us New Yorkers in America, we have one President, one Governor and one Mayor. Nothing contradictory about it.

 

[Fred]

They ignore scripture that very clearly, in simple explicit language speaks to the Father only as the one true God.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/why-the-trinity-is-wrong-language-usage.201/#post-5136

 

[Fred]

Total nonsense.

To you because you keep ignoring it.

It's nice seeing you keep hiding from it.

 

[Wrangler]

So they pick apart only scripture 'they see' a loop hole in.

Their starting point and ending point is the tip of the iceberg AS IF there is only ambiguous text. Since this ambiguous text COULD BE taken to "support" the trinity, it must be so. All the while, ignoring the rest of the iceberg that destroys the trinity in every conceivable way.

And of course, they deny such ambiguous text COULD ALSO be taken to destroy the trinity. For instance, one guy asserted the other day that Col 2:9 states Jesus is God because God dwells in Jesus. I responded by pointing out that Jesus, like us, is a container for God and then quoted Scripture that states how God dwells also in us. He rejected this for no reason other than moral outrage.

One vid pointed out that this eisegesis only happens if you start with the idea of the trinity and impose it on the monotheist text. No one would read the actual words in Scripture and walk away with the understanding of a 3-in-1 God.


I am Yahweh, and there is no other.
There is no other Elohim besides me.
Isaiah 45:5 (NOG)

 

[APAK]

Their starting point and ending point is the tip of the iceberg AS IF there is only ambiguous text. Since this ambiguous text COULD BE taken to "support" the trinity, it must be so. All the while, ignoring the rest of the iceberg that destroys the trinity in every conceivable way.

And of course, they deny such ambiguous text COULD ALSO be taken to destroy the trinity. For instance, one guy asserted the other day that Col 2:9 states Jesus is God because God dwells in Jesus. I responded by pointing out that Jesus, like us, is a container for God and then quoted Scripture that states how God dwells also in us. He rejected this for no reason other than moral outrage.

One vid pointed out that this eisegesis only happens if you start with the idea of the trinity and impose it on the monotheist text. No one would read the actual words in Scripture and walk away with the understanding of a 3-in-1 God.


I am Yahweh, and there is no other.
There is no other Elohim besides me.
Isaiah 45:5 (NOG)

And as one person put it..."The Trinity and its definition is logically inconsistent. To put it mathematically, it claims that A is not equal to B, B is not equal to C, C is not equal to A, but all three are simultaneously equal to D. This is impossible, because it is a direct logical negation; it is no different from saying A does not equal A.

And this chaotic reasoning does not deter at all.

This alone should close the case on the subject, and yet you will hear no end to it, as they will just dismiss what was just written or said and continue on with their fight until all scripture is infected with the Trinity.

You know growing up, even RCCs and most Protestants I knew did not really contest that the Son of God was absent in the OT scriptures, expect as a forecast for the future, future events that we see in the NT. Now it is the hot topic of debate and rethinking, set ablaze with, "did you see Jesus here in this OT verse" Here he is again and also spoken about in the NT as god." It now never ends.

Why don't they just do what they really want, their goal, rewrite the Bible in its entirety, in terms of their god and be done with it. So they have their Bible and Christology and I willl keep mine.

 

[Wrangler]

it is no different from saying A does not equal A.

Indeed. The violation of the Law of Identity is plainly seen.
P1. Jesus is the son of God.
P2. Jesus is NOT the son of God (but God himself in the flesh).

Dualism, the mystical supposition that contradictions exist in reality, is at play here.

The difference is, P1 is explicitly found in Scripture. P2 is a manmade invention that is anti-Scriptural.

From a psychological perspective, we are supposed to trust what God says AND trust that God means the opposite (or contradiction) of what he says. Huh? No wonder trinitarianism does not bring forth the Fruit of the Spirit. God is a God of Order not chaos & trinitarianism is chaos. It reduces the word of God to be like a Dr. Seuss book that both denigrates God (as not all glory is given to him, alone) and denigrates Jesus sacrifice as being something less than total.

 

[synergy]

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....


View attachment 203 View attachment 204

It matches what I quoted before.

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.

That's exactly the problem. You've got Eusebius' "closely" mirroring a manuscript that is 1300 years (!) removed from the originals. On the Christian side we have the 4th century transcripts, a slew of 2nd century Early Church Father, and even the Didache which is mere decades removed from the originals that all mirror exactly was and still is in Matt 28:19. The evidence is overwhelming on the Trinitarian Christian side.

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

What does TB stand for?

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.

It is not only mentioned in Matt 28:19 but it is supported throughout the Bible by virtue of the fact that the Uncreated Word of God became flesh as Jesus.

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.

Yes, let's let the reader do exactly that. The only hope that Unitarians have is if there are others who believe that the Bible is corrupted such as Atheists, Muslims, and Arians.

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

View attachment 206

View attachment 207

You continue to base your proofs on non-existent people. The RCC did not exist at that time so they have as much say in the matter as any other organization does. You certainly know how to pick your witnesses. As i said before, 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.

“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.”

You conveniently leave out the fact that your star witness was an Arian when he wrote that. Your star witness was a biased Arian. You certainly know how to pick "unbiased" winesses. Give me a break.

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.

Eusebius stated the Bible verse that he thought best described the Council's decision to side on the Trinitarian side, a direct quote of Matt 28:19. He could have done better by quoting John 1.

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.”

It's always by Jesus Christ's authority that sacraments are performed by his followers. On that basis, 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 is still on you to prove that Matt 28:19 was changed and you still have yet to do so.

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.

Trinitarianism stands mainly because of the fact that the Uncreated Word of God became flesh as Jesus. Unitarianism is a direct shot against the Incarnation.

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.

It's through 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.

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

The fact that there is no Arianism anywhere in the Bible tells everyone that it's you who needs a "new set glasses or lens to see with".
.

 

[synergy]

LOL There is only one God the Father.

There is one God the Father just like there is one God the Son and one God the Holy Spirit.

 

[synergy]

While trinitarians distract you with demands of proof, the pudding is seen in the fact that they don't have rejection criteria.

I already told you a rejection criteria. Prove Arianism and you disprove Trinitariansm. I'm still waiting for proof on that...

 

[synergy]

They ignore scripture that very clearly, in simple explicit language speaks to the Father only as the one true God. I do not have a problem with Jesus be as God for his Father's will and desires. To make him also the same God, one person of the Father is incredible and unbelievable.

We believe God is three persons, not one.

So they pick apart only scripture 'they see' a loop hole in. Then they begin to pick it apart, twist it, hammer at it and reshape it to fit, like forcing a round peg into a square hole. And when it is all said and done, confusion and chaos is left in its wake, as the same for their god of confusion.

You're projecting again.

 

[synergy]

Their starting point and ending point is the tip of the iceberg AS IF there is only ambiguous text. Since this ambiguous text COULD BE taken to "support" the trinity, it must be so. All the while, ignoring the rest of the iceberg that destroys the trinity in every conceivable way.

John 1 is very clear and that's the iceberg that destroys Arianism.

And of course, they deny such ambiguous text COULD ALSO be taken to destroy the trinity. For instance, one guy asserted the other day that Col 2:9 states Jesus is God because God dwells in Jesus. I responded by pointing out that Jesus, like us, is a container for God and then quoted Scripture that states how God dwells also in us. He rejected this for no reason other than moral outrage.

John 1 is ambiguous only to those who accept Arianism.

One vid pointed out that this eisegesis only happens if you start with the idea of the trinity and impose it on the monotheist text. No one would read the actual words in Scripture and walk away with the understanding of a 3-in-1 God.

No Arian would, that's for sure.

I am Yahweh, and there is no other.
There is no other Elohim besides me.
Isaiah 45:5 (NOG)

One God, we believe that.

 

[synergy]

And as one person put it..."The Trinity and its definition is logically inconsistent. To put it mathematically, it claims that A is not equal to B, B is not equal to C, C is not equal to A, but all three are simultaneously equal to D. This is impossible, because it is a direct logical negation; it is no different from saying A does not equal A.

And this chaotic reasoning does not deter at all.

Everyone has his own unique personality but we all have the same one human nature. As for God, each person is his own unique person and all three have thecsamecone God nature. What is so hard to understand about that?

This alone should close the case on the subject, and yet you will hear no end to it, as they will just dismiss what was just written or said and continue on with their fight until all scripture is infected with the Trinity.

This elementary grade level understanding should close the case against Unitarianism but they just scoff at that simple understanding.

You know growing up, even RCCs and most Protestants I knew did not really contest that the Son of God was absent in the OT scriptures, expect as a forecast for the future, future events that we see in the NT. Now it is the hot topic of debate and rethinking, set ablaze with, "did you see Jesus here in this OT verse" Here he is again and also spoken about in the NT as god." It now never ends.

Unitarians scoff at who exactly is the Word of God in both the OT and the NT.

Why don't they just do what they really want, their goal, rewrite the Bible in its entirety, in terms of their god and be done with it. So they have their Bible and Christology and I willl keep mine.

Unitarians are the ones who scream that the Bible is corrupted. So Unitarians can just remove their paws off the Bible and they can write theirs up any way they want.

 

[synergy]

Indeed. The violation of the Law of Identity is plainly seen.
P1. Jesus is the son of God.
P2. Jesus is NOT the son of God (but God himself in the flesh).

Who said that God is not the Son of God? He is God in the flesh. He has dozens of other titles like Word of God, Son of Man, Lamb of God, etc...

 

[Wrangler]

Who said that God is not the Son of God?

Scripture. See thread on definitions.

 

[Wrangler]

John 1 is very clear

LOL. John 1:1 does not even refer to Jesus. John 20:31 is very clear; Jesus is not God but Anointed by God the Father.