Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Peterlag]

There is not a single translation of Scripture that does not include all three in Matt 28:19. These words were not added, but were part of the original text of the oldest manuscripts of the book of Matthew.

Some did, as is indicated in Acts 2:38, but the majority seem to have used all three names in baptism. Canney seems to be a very biased, human authored book, and does not appear to be very reliable.

Again, a biased, human authored book.

Catholics have changed so much that the Scripture teaches that they are barely Christian at all; they are more papist than Christian. But if they are claiming to have "changed" the "baptismal formula", then it had been changed before and they were correcting it to what Scripture shows in Matt 28:19.

I find it disastrous and sad when people start to claim secular books as the source material for their doctrine over Scripture.

The baptism of Matthew 28:19 does not fit with anything the Apostles did or taught. It does not fit with the gospel of Jesus Christ that the Apostle Paul taught. It does not fit with any part of the New Testament that started in the book of Acts. You have another gospel and it's not the one from the Bible.

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.

 

[Runningman]

Let's look at this verse closely for a minute.
In bold above are two statements that are only different in the preposition, and those prepositions can both mean the same thing. The Father is the source and Jesus is the conduit, but together they are one.
Underlined are two equally similar statements. We are in the Father and by the Son. But elsewhere we are in the Son and by the Father. They are inseparable.

Further, God and Lord are interchangeable between the two. All through the OT, the Father is called Lord. And in the NT, Jesus claimed to be God on several occasions, not the least of which was John 8:58.

A philosophical argument doesn't override the plaintext of what the Bible already says. I believe you're attaching theology to what the Bible says becsause you're attempting to understand it around what you've been taught to believe.

 

[Doug Brents]

The baptism of Matthew 28:19 does not fit with anything the Apostles did or taught. It does not fit with the gospel of Jesus Christ that the Apostle Paul taught. It does not fit with any part of the New Testament that started in the book of Acts. You have another gospel and it's not the one from the Bible.

Thank you for your opinion. But since no serious Bible Scholar in the past 2000 years has questioned the validity of Matt 28:19 as part of Scripture, I will ignore your very biased opinion.

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.

I did not bring up that passage. You are correct that that passage has some doubt as to it authenticity. But there is no doubt as to the authenticity of Matt 28:19, or of Matt 3:16-17 which portrays the three persons of God interacting.

 

[Doug Brents]

A philosophical argument doesn't override the plaintext of what the Bible already says. I believe you're attaching theology to what the Bible says becsause you're attempting to understand it around what you've been taught to believe.

Believe what you want. That doesn't change the truth.

 

[Runningman]

Believe what you want. That doesn't change the truth.

Agreed. The below truth about the one and only God being defined as the Father is permanent.

John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 Corinthians 8
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 4
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

[Peterlag]

Thank you for your opinion. But since no serious Bible Scholar in the past 2000 years has questioned the validity of Matt 28:19 as part of Scripture, I will ignore your very biased opinion.

I did not bring up that passage. You are correct that that passage has some doubt as to it authenticity. But there is no doubt as to the authenticity of Matt 28:19, or of Matt 3:16-17 which portrays the three persons of God interacting.

The Apostles did not follow Matthew 28:19. They baptized nobody in the name of the father, son and holy spirit.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus is out here saying...​

• "The Father is greater than I" and somehow that’s code for co-equal.
• Trinitarians be like: God is one… in three… but still one… but not that kind of one. It’s a mystery, Bro—just don’t think too hard or you’ll end up a heretic.
• Trinitarians spent centuries debating whether the Son was begotten, unbegotten, or "eternally begotten"—Unitarians just opened the Bible and said "He prayed to God… case closed."
• Arians to Trinitarians: So let me get this straight—you worship a Son who said “The Father is greater than I” but you insist they’re co-equal? That’s not theology, that’s celestial gaslighting.
• Trinitarians say God is three persons but one essence—meanwhile Unitarians are over here like, Bro, if God wanted to be confusing, He’d have just written the doctrine of the Trinity Himself.
• Trinitarianism: invented by philosophers, ratified by emperors, and enforced by the sword—because nothing says divine truth like needing an imperial decree and exile threats to make your theology stick.
• Trinitarianism: the only belief system where 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, and questioning the math gets you branded a heretic faster than you can say "Nicea 325." It’s like divine calculus—don’t try to solve it, just accept it or you’re out of the club.
• Trinitarians act like the early church was reciting the Nicene Creed at Pentecost, when in reality, Peter just said Jesus was a man approved by God—not a co-equal divine being sharing an essence with the Holy Spirit, who didn’t even get promoted to full Godhood until later councils.

 

[synergy]

Jesus is out here saying...​

• "The Father is greater than I" and somehow that’s code for co-equal.

Equal in essence. Can you understand?

• Trinitarians be like: God is one… in three… but still one… but not that kind of one. It’s a mystery, Bro—just don’t think too hard or you’ll end up a heretic.

One essence. Three persons. Can you understand?

• Trinitarians spent centuries debating whether the Son was begotten, unbegotten, or "eternally begotten"—Unitarians just opened the Bible and said "He prayed to God… case closed."

Jesus prayed Person to Person. Can you understand that fact?

• Arians to Trinitarians: So let me get this straight—you worship a Son who said “The Father is greater than I” but you insist they’re co-equal? That’s not theology, that’s celestial gaslighting.

You just confirmed what I suspected all along. You're an Arian.

• Trinitarians say God is three persons but one essence—meanwhile Unitarians are over here like, Bro, if God wanted to be confusing, He’d have just written the doctrine of the Trinity Himself.

You are intentionally refusing logic. That's a hallmark of Arianism.

• Trinitarianism: invented by philosophers, ratified by emperors, and enforced by the sword—because nothing says divine truth like needing an imperial decree and exile threats to make your theology stick.

False. Trinitarian roots start from Adam's formation (let us make man in our image) and goes throughout all of the NT and OT.

• Trinitarianism: the only belief system where 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, and questioning the math gets you branded a heretic faster than you can say "Nicea 325." It’s like divine calculus—don’t try to solve it, just accept it or you’re out of the club.

1+1+1= 3 Persons. Your comments are gaslighting strawmen.

• Trinitarians act like the early church was reciting the Nicene Creed at Pentecost, when in reality, Peter just said Jesus was a man approved by God—not a co-equal divine being sharing an essence with the Holy Spirit, who didn’t even get promoted to full Godhood until later councils.

Again, Trinitarian roots start from Adam's formation (let us make man in our image) and goes throughout all of the NT and OT. You just stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge truth.

 

[Runningman]

The Apostles did not follow Matthew 28:19. They baptized nobody in the name of the father, son and holy spirit.

The don't understand what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means.

 

[Peterlag]

Equal in essence. Can you understand?

One essence. Three persons. Can you understand?

Jesus prayed Person to Person. Can you understand that fact?

You just confirmed what I suspected all along. You're an Arian.

You are intentionally refusing logic. That's a hallmark of Arianism.

False. Trinitarian roots start from Adam's formation (let us make man in our image) and goes throughout all of the NT and OT.

1+1+1= 3 Persons. Your comments are gaslighting strawmen.

Again, Trinitarian roots start from Adam's formation (let us make man in our image) and goes throughout all of the NT and OT. You just stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge truth.

 

[Peterlag]

If the Trinity folks tell me that Jesus is a man...​

That he was indeed a man while he was on the earth because he emptied himself of his Godhood (which is not stated anywhere in Scripture. That Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood).

If they say this every time I post Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

Then there's no way I can win. I should then just go fishing.

 

[mikesw]

If the Trinity folks tell me that Jesus is a man...​

That he was indeed a man while he was on the earth because he emptied himself of his Godhood (which is not stated anywhere in Scripture. That Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood).

If they say this every time I post Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

Then there's no way I can win. I should then just go fishing.

View attachment 2144

If you could find out good arguments against the passages that point to the divinity of Christ, then you would have a chance to "win."

 

[Peterlag]

Spiritual death is separation from God the Father and His Son.

Many false believers (John 4:23-24) and false worshipers do not have a relationship with God the Father and his Son (1 John 1:3).
Trinitarians usually aren't even aware they are spiritually dead as they have NO relationship with their fictional Trinity God.

 

[Fred]

Spiritual death is separation from God the Father and His Son.

Many false believers (John 4:23-24) and false worshipers do not have a relationship with God the Father and his Son (1 John 1:3).
Trinitarians usually aren't even aware they are spiritually dead as they have NO relationship with their fictional Trinity God.

View attachment 2150

You are still in denial of whom the 'Lord' refers to in Hebrews 1:10.

 

[mikesw]

You are still in denial of whom the 'Lord' refers to in Hebrews 1:10.

The denials are of items very blatant about Jesus's identity. They say to trust their opinion instead of what the passages clearly say.

 

[Peterlag]

You are still in denial of whom the 'Lord' refers to in Hebrews 1:10.

Hebrews 1:10 is God. What's to deny?

 

[Doug Brents]

Hebrews 1:10 is God. What's to deny?

Heb 1:10 is talking about Jesus.
8 "But regarding the Son He says,
“Your throne, God, is forever and ever,
And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your companions.”
10 And,
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;"

Who created the heavens and earth? God. And according to Heb 1:10, Jesus (the Son) did also. Since the heavens and Earth were only created once, Jesus must be God.

 

[Peterlag]

Heb 1:10 is talking about Jesus.
8 "But regarding the Son He says,
“Your throne, God, is forever and ever,
And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your companions.”
10 And,
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;"

Who created the heavens and earth? God. And according to Heb 1:10, Jesus (the Son) did also. Since the heavens and Earth were only created once, Jesus must be God.

Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

“Your throne is God.” Hebrews 1:8 is an almost exact quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6, which itself was a very good translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews 1:9 is from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:7. The theme of Hebrews 1 centers around the Father’s rule and elevation of the Son over the rest of creation. God spoke through the prophets, and then through His Son, who He appointed heir of all things and who is now seated at God’s right hand as second in command under God.

The God of the Son—anointed him and set him above his companions, such that the Son now sits on God’s right hand. Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalm 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. To see that fully, one must study Psalm 45. Upon examination, Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, so when it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 then that quotation does not support the Trinity either. The Jews read Psalm 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.

 

[mikesw]

Heb 1:10 is talking about Jesus.
8 "But regarding the Son He says,
“Your throne, God, is forever and ever,
And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your companions.”
10 And,
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;"

Who created the heavens and earth? God. And according to Heb 1:10, Jesus (the Son) did also. Since the heavens and Earth were only created once, Jesus must be God.

Peterlag added something true. "You, Lord" is God and God the Son. When Peterlag denies this, he denies what the "And" is there for.
The additional obvious error is that verse 10 would have no context for elaborating on the Father. Context is very critical when someone is trying to make a statement about the meaning of a verse. Just for sake of clarity. The context is about the essence of Jesus.

 

[mikesw]

Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

“Your throne is God.” Hebrews 1:8 is an almost exact quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6, which itself was a very good translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews 1:9 is from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:7. The theme of Hebrews 1 centers around the Father’s rule and elevation of the Son over the rest of creation. God spoke through the prophets, and then through His Son, who He appointed heir of all things and who is now seated at God’s right hand as second in command under God.

The God of the Son—anointed him and set him above his companions, such that the Son now sits on God’s right hand. Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalm 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. To see that fully, one must study Psalm 45. Upon examination, Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, so when it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 then that quotation does not support the Trinity either. The Jews read Psalm 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.

Peterlag does not read my posts... at least not acknowledging when he reads them.

It does not have to be recognized what Jews anticipated. The passage obviously would be ambiguous to them such that the letter to the Hebrews is what resolves the meaning -- and possibly shared by the Hebrew readers beforehand.

The King of Ps 45:1 is the "most handsome of the sons of men." Then verse 6 refers to him as God who is on his throne. If Peterlag wants to make Yahweh into a mere man, he is consistent with view here. If instead we follow the application here, Jesus is identified with God. It would help if Peterlag understood scripture so he could quote things in context. But he has admitted that his study is basically the New Testament as the text that he distorts for his heresies.