Peterlag
Active Member
No Jesus is not God.
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
charismaticlady
Active Member
I'm not reading a gigantic answer. You can answer in one word. What is it? Who is the Holy Spirit? We all are made up in God's image: spirit, soul and body. Whose spirit is the Holy Spirit?
Data On The Holy Spirit | The Gift of God’s Spirit Has Changed
The data on the Holy Spirit. The gift of God's spirit has changed. Learn more about data on the Holy Spirit here at Walking By The Spirit and read the free book.walking-by-the-spirit.com
synergy
Active Member
Your only rebuttal here is an unsupported assertion.
Give us your best Bible verse that you think supports your heresies and I will show you your errors.
The problem is that you cannot differentiate between passages in your "studies." I do not know anyone who says Jesus is the Father. Do you have some verse that you think leads anyone to think that?
The second problem is that Titus 2:13-14 shows Jesus as God and Savior. That is the topic that has been at hand. So you are wrong to use Titus 1:4 in this discussion as if it cancels the message of Titus 2:13-14
charismaticlady
Active Member
Read Titus 2:13. What does it say in your Bible?
Runningman
Active Member
"of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" which follows what Titus 1:4 says. Grammatically and linguistically, Jesus isn't the Great God because he isn't the Father. The Father is God. Any time God is referred to it's a reference to the Father.
civic
Active Member
That's true. Unitarianism is not formalized in Scripture, but if you take a verse from here, a verse from there, and ignore a ton of other things it's possible to misrepresent Scripture in a variety of different ways.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
Runningman
Active Member
Unitarianism is explicitly formalized in John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, etc. Are you denying that the Father is the only true God and Jesus Christ is the one He sent? Are you denying Jesus is a human Messiah as well?
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@Peterlag
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ORIGINAL TEXT THAT THEY CHANGED FROM.
You provide quite a list here.... but check out the following and also those anti-trinitarians who say Matt 28:19 is original......
1. Every single Greek manuscript of Matthew (over 1,800 of them) contains the Trinitarian formula — including the oldest ones we have (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)
2. Every single Christian writer who quotes Matthew 28:19 from the 2nd century onward has the full Trinitarian formula — 100 % of the time, with zero exceptions.
3.Didache (c. AD 50–100, Jerusalem-area church manual)... “baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” — exact quote of Matt 28:19
4. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, quoptes Matt 28:19 as is written.
5. The only supposed “evidence” against it was Eusebius (c. AD 260–340) sometimes paraphrases Matthew 28:19 as “make disciples of all nations in my name”. Paraphrases Matthew 28:19 as “make disciples of all nations in my name”Paraphrase, not a quotation — he also quotes the full Trinitarian formula eleven other times in his writings. Scholars agree he is summarizing, not giving the original text.
So...................
Bottom-line facts
No ancient Greek manuscript of Matthew has ever been found with a different ending.Every known quotation from AD 100 onward has the Trinitarian formula — in Jerusalem, Syria, Rome, North Africa, Egypt, Gaul — long before “Roman Catholicism” as we know it existed.
The earliest church manual (Didache, probably written by people who knew the apostles) uses the exact Trinitarian wording.
Additionally
The claim that Matthew 28:19 is a later Roman Catholic fabrication is completely false and has been debunked for over 100 years by textual scholars of every denomination (Catholic, Protestant, and even many non-Trinitarian scholars admit the text is original).
The Trinitarian baptismal formula was used by the original Jerusalem-led church from the very beginning — not invented centuries later.
KEEP ON FOR SOME INTERESTING TRIVIA.....
THE ANTI-TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS WHO SAY MATT 28:19 IS ORIGINAL
Non-Trinitarian Scholars Who Affirm the Originality of Matthew 28:19
The Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 ("baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") is universally accepted as original by textual critics, including many who reject Trinitarian theology. The claim of interpolation (e.g., based on Eusebius' paraphrases or later church practice) has been thoroughly debunked, as no Greek manuscript variants exist, and early patristic quotations (e.g., Didache, c. 50–100 AD) preserve the full text. Below are key non-Trinitarian scholars who explicitly affirm the verse's authenticity, drawn from textual criticism and historical analysis.
1. . Bart Ehrman (Agnostic/Atheist Textual Critic)
Background: Leading New Testament scholar, author of Misquoting Jesus (2005) and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (1993); self-described agnostic who critiques Trinitarian developments but affirms core textual integrity.Affirmation: In Misquoting Jesus (p. 134), Ehrman states the long (Trinitarian) form is original, dismissing interpolation theories as lacking manuscript evidence. He notes Eusebius' shorter paraphrases are stylistic summaries, not quotations of a variant text, and all extant manuscripts (over 1,800 Greek MSS, including Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, 4th century) support the full formula.
Quote: "The verse [Matthew 28:19] is found in all of our Greek manuscripts... There is no textual problem here."
2. F. F. Bruce (Evangelical but Non-Trinitarian-Leaning Textual Scholar)
Background: Renowned British scholar (1910–1990), author of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943); while evangelical, his work emphasizes historical criticism over dogmatic Trinitarianism and is cited by unitarians.
Affirmation: In The Books and the Parchments (1950, p. 179), Bruce affirms the Trinitarian formula as authentic, based on unanimous manuscript attestation and early liturgical use (e.g., Didache 7:1, c. 100 AD). He rejects corruption theories as "groundless," noting no variants in the Greek tradition.
Quote: "The Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19 is attested by all the Greek manuscripts and early versions."
3. Raymond E. Brown (Catholic but Critically Non-Trinitarian in Emphasis)
Background: Influential 20th-century scholar (1928–1998), author of The Birth of the Messiah (1977); while Catholic, his historical-critical approach often aligns with non-Trinitarian textual minimalism, emphasizing early church development over dogmatic imposition.
Affirmation: In The Gospel According to John (1966, vol. 1, p. 59), Brown upholds Matthew 28:19 as original, citing its presence in all MSS and patristic witnesses like Ignatius (c. 110 AD) and Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD). He views it as an early Matthean redaction but not a later forgery.
Quote: "The Trinitarian baptismal formula is securely attested in the textual tradition of Matthew."
4. James D. G. Dunn (Liberal Anglican Scholar, Non-Trinitarian Emphasis)
Background: British New Testament scholar (1939–2020), author of Christology in the Making (1980); critiques high Trinitarianism as a later development, focusing on historical Jesus research.
Affirmation: In The Evidence for Jesus (1985, p. 93), Dunn affirms the verse's originality, noting no textual variants and its use in pre-Nicene sources like the Didache and Irenaeus (c. 180 AD). He sees it as reflecting early Christian practice, not a 4th-century addition.
Quote: "Matthew 28:19's baptismal command... stands unchallenged in the manuscript tradition."
Evaluation and Context
These scholars represent a spectrum of non-Trinitarian or Trinitarian-skeptical views (agnostic, evangelical-critical, Catholic-historical, liberal Anglican), yet all affirm the text's authenticity based on:
Manuscript Evidence: No variants in ~5,800 Greek MSS; earliest (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus, 4th century) include it.
Patristic Quotations: Uniform from Didache (c. 50–100 AD) to Tertullian (c. 200 AD).
Rejection of Eusebius Argument: Eusebius (c. 260–340 AD) paraphrased ~18 times (often shortening for rhetoric) but quoted the full formula 11 times; textual critics like Ehrman call this stylistic, not evidence of a lost original.
The interpolation theory (popularized by 19th-century unitarians like F. C. Baur) lacks support and is rejected by modern non-Trinitarian scholars like Ehrman, who notes it's "a fringe view" without manuscript backing.
So again you are wrong and you need to adjust your methods of research.
civic
Active Member
Its emphatically denied in those passages as demonstrated by Jesus being equal with the Father in Eternal Life and the creation of all things who was together with the Father before creation.
Not a single jot or tittle affirms the uni god, let alone any single passage.
next fallacy
Peterlag
Active Member
In biblical research and in any other reasonable study. If we have 10 clear verses on a subject and 1 verse that does not fit with the other 10 verses on the same subject. We are not to disregard the 10 clear verses and hold on to the 1 verse and then say we have proof that the 1 verse is well documented. Baptizing in the name of the father, son, and spirit is not taught or practiced anywhere in the book of Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. Nobody carried out such a request that Trinitarians say came from Jesus. So even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were originally written by the Apostles. It still does not fit with the rest of the Bible because we are immersed in the spirit when we are born again. We get that spirit by confessing the Lord Jesus, and believing that God raised him from the dead. Thus we are immersed in his name.
thanks for sharing your mistaken view of the interpretation process. The priority is to recognize how the passages are all true, not to just throw away verses because it goes against your view. Often enough I find people disregarding verses or making theories that the text was altered when in fact they just had the wrong starting point or missed critical details.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Unless you belong to a fringe group the norm used is in the name of the three.
So since you are so certain this is wrong.... look how many of us can say we were never baptized.... wrong wording = null and void.
that will have a profound effect on those who teach baptism saves.....
I sure am happy that I was baptized in the Spirit....
Runningman
Active Member
Unitarians state there is but one God, the Father, who is the only true God. This is explicitly repeated in John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, etc. Calling Scripture a fallacy doesn't sit well with me. Anyone with basic reading comprehension can see what those verses say, it's only the trinitarians who try to distort scripture to make it say something it does not.
Peterlag
Active Member
You were baptized in spirit. Not water and not father, son, and holy spirit.
Oops. you have the wrong "spirit" there. You missed the Holy Spirit from what you share.
Peterlag
Active Member
This is just Acts...
I will pour out in those days of my Spirit
the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake
the Spirit said unto him
the Spirit bade me go with them
Agabus signified by the Spirit
Paul was pressed in the spirit
instructed in the way of the Lord and being fervent in the spirit
Paul purposed in the spirit
bound in the spirit
who said to Paul through the Spirit
were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake
Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit
while Paul waited for them at Athens his spirit was stirred in him
was instructed in the way of the Lord and being fervent in the spirit
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I was Absolutely baptized in the Holy Spirit.. An experience everyone should have
You need to correct your reply and capitalize the s in Spirit.
Last edited:
Indeed the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure what you call a spirit thing.
Similar threads
