Your Views on The Trinity

1. If you can show a verse that the apostles also named the Bible as the Scriptures.
Concept of Trinity mentioned in Matt 28:19.
2. Acts 17:29, Rom 1:20, Col 2:9 and Acts 5:3-4. They are one in the nature of God in three distinct persons.
3. All the Father had are mine. (John 16:15) That's equality. Father is greater than Jesus is what is called "relational subordination".
4. The Father also sent Jesus. They three have different roles in saving mankind but that does not mean they are not one in the nature of God.
5. That is when Jesus in human nature. Is Jesus words wrong in John 16:15?
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
________________________________________
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 3, Pg 82
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
________________________________________
CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Pg 53
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 8
Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38
NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s."
 
I do not reject mediation between man and God through Jesus. The characteristic of the Hebrews passage is that the action of Jesus on behalf of man is in the forefront there. It expresses what Jesus was sent to do. But in Gal 3, the focus is on the promise to Jesus (given in parallel with Abraham) to be the one through whom reconciliation is achieved. The point in Gal 3 is that the promise to Jesus could not have additional requirements of the law added to it. In parallel, the message to the Galatians is that the Mosaic law does not become a requirement upon people reconciled to God through this promise.
But in Gal 3, the focus is on the promise to Jesus (given in parallel with Abraham) to be the one through whom reconciliation is achieved. The point in Gal 3 is that the promise to Jesus could not have additional requirements of the law added to it. In parallel, the message to the Galatians is that the Mosaic law does not become a requirement upon people reconciled to God through this promise.
AGREE = TRUTH

What Paul does say is that there is no possible issue to mediate between God and Jesus within the promise from God to Jesus.
This part, which you state, is not coming off as scripturally accurate(to me).

If you would, please quantify exactly how you attest to: "no possible issue to mediate between God and Jesus...."

Thank You
 
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.
 
AGREE = TRUTH


This part, which you state, is not coming off as scripturally accurate(to me).

If you would, please quantify exactly how you attest to: "no possible issue to mediate between God and Jesus...."

Thank You
The only failing point possible is if God did not send his Son. First, that would say God fails in the area of faithfulness. The second problem would be the assumption that the Mosaic law or some other action external to God could be necessary to cause Jesus to be sent.
The anchor point given in Gal 3:19 is of Jesus coming incarnate as the offspring to whom the promise had been made. Moses nor the law caused that to happen. Neither Moses nor the Law could ensure or compel God to fulfill his promise to his Son or through his Son. That is the heart of Paul's argument. As I show in the full analysis, Paul's ultimate point for the reader regards this lack of mediation through the law within the Christian's relationship with God.

The structure of Paul's argument is complicated but it is meant to be encountered, not dissected. I think other people may eventually develop this explanation in a simpler way once they understand what I have shared.
 
Last edited:
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.
how many denials of the message of scripture does it take before the Arian view changes its meaning?
 
If Christ simply died like another other man, being solely a man, then His death would have what value?

It is the Divinity/Deity of Christ that establishes the eternal worth of His death for humanity. The right to Eternal life is established in the death of Eternal things. Life for life.

The issue with me is the difference between what is actually written, and what this world's religious system that you are promoting, who "Come in Christ's Name", preaches.

According to what is actually written, Jesus was a man, Anointed as the High Priest of God and Given a Name "above all other humans, "Because" of what HE accomplished "as a man", and that was sinless perfection. The prince of this world would have us believe Jesus overcome Sin and Temptations and Death because HE was God. So when the going got tough, like it does for all mortal men "striving against Sin", Jesus just kicked in God Powers no other human has ever had access to. This of course, demeans and makes a mockery of His Life. As it is taught by this world's religious system, a God (one of 3 deities that make up God) who pretends to be a man, but actually succeeded in obedience to God, not by humbling Himself to God, but by simply being a God. And of course, God can't die, God can't Sin, God can't be tempted. In this way, they Mock His Father for partaking in a scam that promotes a God receiving this great reward because HE never sinned, when it was literally impossible for Him to Sin. And they worship this God who was "raised from the dead", when it was literally impossible for Him to die in the first place.

This teaching that Jesus overcame "because" HE was God and not a mortal man, is the most insidious and evil judgments against God and His Christ I have ever heard. It completely makes a Mockery of God for Exalting Jesus for doing nothing more than "being God".

Here is what the Spirit of God had actually written for us.

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

Isn't Jesus the "Sceptre of God's Kingdom", who became a man, and humbled Himself in obedience to God unto His Death?? And what did HE do as a man? Doesn't God show you through David?

7 Thou (God's sceptre) lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore (Because of This) God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness "above thy fellows".

Who was His Fellows? If HE came to earth as God, and overcame because HE was God, then His Fellows, according to this world's religious system, is God the Father and the Holy Spirit. How many God's do you believe there is, that HE would receive something "above His fellows"?

But what does the bible actually teach?

Is. 53: 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

He was a man of Sorrows, not "A God of Sorrows"?

So what if the deceivers of this world have it wrong. And the Scepter of God's Kingdom risked His Immortality to become a mortal human being, as it is written. What if Jesus wasn't lying when HE said HE laid down HIS Life for others?

Heb. 4: 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

How can God be tempted, or Sin? To believe you and Civic and this world's religious system, I would have to believe that Jesus, God's Sceptre, risked nothing, laid down His Life for no one. That His Sinless life, and subsequent death and resurrection was just showbusiness, a scam, a deception. Because everyone knows God cannot Sin or die.

But what if His Life wasn't a scam, and the Christ really did risk His Life for me, by becoming a mortal man or as HE said, "Lay down His Life"? And this to become the unblemished Lamb of God?

What if the Scriptures are actually right, and this worlds religious philosophies that you have adopted and are now promoting is the deception? What if Jesus, as a man, " lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness", and that is the reason why God gave Him the Glory?

What if Paul is right, and this world's religious system are the deceivers.

Phil. 2: 8 And being found in fashion "as a man", he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore (Because of this) God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

When did this happen? When HE was a 6 month old baby nursing? Or maybe when HE was 2? When did HE, the "Sceptre of God's Kingdom" find Himself in Fashion as a man?

No, What made the Death of this man so relevant, what gave the death of this man "Value" above the death of every other man, was His Life dedicated to His Father in all things. Talk about the weight of the world on His Shoulders. Talk about true Faith, trusting what was written about Him. It's no wonder God was proud of Him, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".

I will never join with you guys as you promote the falsehood that the Sceptre of God's Kingdom didn't come to earth as a flesh and blood mortal, risking His Life, so that I might have a chance to be reconciled to God. I will never join the "course of this world" who promote a jesus who overcame sin, death and temptation "Because" HE was God.
 
The only failing point possible is if God did not send his Son. First, that would say God fails in the area of faithfulness. The second problem would be the assumption that the Mosaic law or some other action external to God could be necessary to cause Jesus to be sent.
The anchor point given in Gal 3:19 is of Jesus coming incarnate as the offspring to whom the promise had been made. Moses nor the law caused that to happen. Neither Moses nor the Law could ensure or compel God to fulfill his promise to his Son or through his Son. That is the heart of Paul's argument. As I show in the full analysis, Paul's ultimate point for the reader regards this lack of mediation through the law within the Christian's relationship with God.

The structure of Paul's argument is complicated but it is meant to be encountered, not dissected. I think other people may eventually develop this explanation in a simpler way once they understand what I have shared.
From your understanding, what then is the compelling 'agent' by which God sent His Son.
 
From your understanding, what then is the compelling 'agent' by which God sent His Son.
The compelling agent is God's faithfulness to his promise to his Son as described in Gal 3:16. God acts on his own accord and power.

An obstacle may occur in understanding Gal 3:16 due to the failure to recognize Paul's emphasis on Jesus being a recipient of the promise -- a promisee along with Abraham. Jesus then arrives in fulfillment of the promise to him (Gal 3:19) but, as underlying Jesus as a mediator, Jesus also is the key to reconciling humanity with God. That mediator and executor of the benefits to humanity seems to be what commentators focus on with Gal 3:16 instead of Jesus as a promisee.
An example follows:
Paul is saying, in typically Jewish fashion, that there is an appropriateness in the use of the singular form here, in that the true fulfilment came only in connection with one person, Christ. Here all must agree: and some at least will agree with Paul that such ‘appropriateness’ is not without the controlling guidance of the Holy Spirit.

R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary InterVarsity Press, 1989), 147.
Cole is not wrong in his observation but he misses the additional detail that Christ is also the promisee. Jesus had to become that offspring such that the blessings would come through him. Verse 19 fills in that detail too late to influence the commentators to recognize that verse 16 is saying the promise is (also) to Jesus.
 
Last edited:
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
________________________________________
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 3, Pg 82
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
________________________________________
CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Pg 53
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 8
Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38
NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s."
The evidence of baptizing only in Jesus name is merely 6 verses in Acts. So the argument is rather weak, especially since Luke could find it is simpler to emphasize Jesus than to elaborate on the name (Father, Son, and Spirit) used in baptisms. I suspect further that the catholic church is conflated with the Roman Catholic church of later centuries -- thus reflecting distortion and bias.
 
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
________________________________________
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 3, Pg 82
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
________________________________________
CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Pg 53
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 8
Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38
NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s."
We have the Bible, I believe we both would agree it is inspired by God. Do you based your faith on encyclopedias?

Is Mat 28:19 not in the Bible?

Prove your point in the Bible. Unless you don't adhere to Sola Scriptura.
 
want the short answer .
BECAUSE GOD IS HIS WORD HE IS HIS SPIRIT .
In JESUS THE CHRIST THE NAME OF GOD HAS BEEN MANIFEST .
If ye have seen me ye have seen the Father . GOD IS HIS WORD . there is and can be NO DOUBT ON THAT .
AND HE IS HIS SPIRIT . EVEN JESUS says I WILL NOT leave you comfortless , I WILL COME UNTO YOU
when speaking about the SPIRIT . AND HE EVEN SAYS ME AND MY FATHER . its real clear
why thomas knelt before HIM and said what HE SAID and JESUS NEVER CORRECTED HIM
@TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY
save-image.png
 
We have the Bible, I believe we both would agree it is inspired by God. Do you based your faith on encyclopedias?

Is Mat 28:19 not in the Bible?

Prove your point in the Bible. Unless you don't adhere to Sola Scriptura.
@Capbook ,

Why do you suppose does @Peterlag still even read a bible when he believes it has been so bastardized?

To give the devil his due..... I just was checking on when this happened and look at what I found.

And if proven to be true........., then all translations have had Jesus lying when they all say Jesus instructed his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as part of the Great Commission, emphasizing the importance of making disciples of all nations. This command is found in Matthew 28:19-20.

@Capbook, not meaning to drag you into this but I , personally will dot have a direct dialog with @Peterlag ....

And I have absolutely no issues with the Trinity.... PERIOD....

But if this is true, someone... and not necessarily the Catholics... changed Matt 28: 19-20 and a very deep dive is needed.
Because if this is true... then every single person living or dead who would have been baptized under a formula that did NOT originate with Jesus... Matt 28: 19-20 might very well be not baptized as was the intention.

Blessings to all

Please look at the link here as I was unsuccessful to actually copy and paste so it could be read with clarity.





 
Last edited:
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.
He is the Lord God Almighty !

Isaiah 44:6-8
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

7And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,
Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come,
Let them show these to them.
8Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’ ”

Rev 22:13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

We can see here that Whoever is the Alpha/Omega also claims to be the first/last AND the beginning/end. It’s the same Person.

If we look back in Rev 1:17-18 we see the following:

“…Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

So, the One Who is first/last (and then is also Alpha/Omega and beginning/end) is the same Person who was dead and is alive forever more. It doesn’t take a scholar to figure out Who is the One speaking here. It does take a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away something so obvious.

The term "first/last" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice it is used along with "Alpha/Omega" with the Person claiming to be "first/last" AND the "Alpha/Omega."

"Alpha/Omega" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice with "first/last" and twice with "beginning/end."

"Beginning/end" occurs 3 times: twice with "Alpha/Omega" and once with "Alpha/Omega" AND "first/last."

In all of these texts, the speaker always refers to Himself with both or all of the titles. To say, "Well, this time it's Jehovah who is the first/last, this next time it's Jesus, then later it's Jehovah again..." is the mental gymnastics to which I referred.

Is God the first/last or is Jesus the first/last? Is God the Alpha/Omega or is Jesus the Alpha/Omega? Is God the beginning/end or is Jesus the beginning/end. An obvious way to reconcile the verses is to understand that Jesus is God.

According to unitarians, it seems God claimed to be the first/last in one sense while Jesus claimed to be first/last in another sense. You seem to gloss over the blatant connection of first/last with beginning/end and Alpha/Omega. In each verse, the Speaker who claims one title also claims one or both of the others. It's all the same person.

I usually wait patiently for unitarians to reply but this point has been nagging at me so I have to comment preemptively. I really am baffled by their suggestion from other discussion in the past that “first/last” has some meaning here other than the obvious one (a title synonymous with Alpha/Omega). You even say that Alpha/Omega is never used of the Son? Incredible!! We both have said that context is king so I would like to remind other readers of the context of Rev 1:17-18 (beginning in v.10, Young’s Literal):

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, `What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.'

And I did turn to see the voice that did speak with me, and having turned, I saw seven golden lamp-stands, and in the midst of the seven lamp-stands, [one] like to a son of man, clothed to the foot, and girt round at the breast with a golden girdle, and his head and hairs white, as if white wool -- as snow, and his eyes as a flame of fire; and his feet like to fine brass, as in a furnace having been fired, and his voice as a sound of many waters, and having in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp two-edged sword is proceeding, and his countenance [is] as the sun shining in its might.

And when I saw him, I did fall at his feet as dead, and he placed his right hand upon me, saying to me, `Be not afraid; I am the First and the Last, and he who is living, and I did become dead, and, lo, I am living to the ages of the ages. Amen! and I have the keys of the hades and of the death.

Do you realize this is one scene? The Speaker identifies Himself in v. 11 as “the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.” John turns to see who is speaking and sees “one like to a son of man” (other translations have “the Son of man”). Perhaps John is saying, "I saw someone who looked like Jesus." Then finally, in v. 17-18, the Speaker indeed identifies Himself as the One who is living and became dead and is now alive again forever.

Unitarians: I guess you identify the Alpha and Omega in v. 8 as Jehovah and v. 11 as Jesus? I guess you don’t see the term “the First and the Last” as a title equivalent to “the Alpha and Omega”? If so, you are definitely seeing something in the text that an ordinary reading doesn’t see because of your bias.

It’s a title ascribed to the Almighty. I didn’t think it needed a more precise definition to be understood. What about, “the one who is and who was and who to come”? Does that need to be defined? I guess we could talk about a precise definition but I don’t think that will change my point. The Alpha/Omega is self-described as “the Almighty (1:8) AND the First/Last (22:13). The First/Last is self-described as the one who was dead and is alive forever more (1:18). Again, there are either 2 people who are the first and last OR Jesus is the Almighty.

Conclusion: Scripture declares YHWH is the First and the Last and besides Me there is no God/YHWH. Christ is YHWH.

hope this helps !!!
 
He is the Lord God Almighty !

Isaiah 44:6-8
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

7And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,
Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come,
Let them show these to them.
8Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’ ”

Rev 22:13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

We can see here that Whoever is the Alpha/Omega also claims to be the first/last AND the beginning/end. It’s the same Person.

If we look back in Rev 1:17-18 we see the following:

“…Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

So, the One Who is first/last (and then is also Alpha/Omega and beginning/end) is the same Person who was dead and is alive forever more. It doesn’t take a scholar to figure out Who is the One speaking here. It does take a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away something so obvious.

The term "first/last" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice it is used along with "Alpha/Omega" with the Person claiming to be "first/last" AND the "Alpha/Omega."

"Alpha/Omega" is used 4 times in Rev. Twice with "first/last" and twice with "beginning/end."

"Beginning/end" occurs 3 times: twice with "Alpha/Omega" and once with "Alpha/Omega" AND "first/last."

In all of these texts, the speaker always refers to Himself with both or all of the titles. To say, "Well, this time it's Jehovah who is the first/last, this next time it's Jesus, then later it's Jehovah again..." is the mental gymnastics to which I referred.

Is God the first/last or is Jesus the first/last? Is God the Alpha/Omega or is Jesus the Alpha/Omega? Is God the beginning/end or is Jesus the beginning/end. An obvious way to reconcile the verses is to understand that Jesus is God.

According to unitarians, it seems God claimed to be the first/last in one sense while Jesus claimed to be first/last in another sense. You seem to gloss over the blatant connection of first/last with beginning/end and Alpha/Omega. In each verse, the Speaker who claims one title also claims one or both of the others. It's all the same person.

I usually wait patiently for unitarians to reply but this point has been nagging at me so I have to comment preemptively. I really am baffled by their suggestion from other discussion in the past that “first/last” has some meaning here other than the obvious one (a title synonymous with Alpha/Omega). You even say that Alpha/Omega is never used of the Son? Incredible!! We both have said that context is king so I would like to remind other readers of the context of Rev 1:17-18 (beginning in v.10, Young’s Literal):

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, `What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.'

And I did turn to see the voice that did speak with me, and having turned, I saw seven golden lamp-stands, and in the midst of the seven lamp-stands, [one] like to a son of man, clothed to the foot, and girt round at the breast with a golden girdle, and his head and hairs white, as if white wool -- as snow, and his eyes as a flame of fire; and his feet like to fine brass, as in a furnace having been fired, and his voice as a sound of many waters, and having in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp two-edged sword is proceeding, and his countenance [is] as the sun shining in its might.

And when I saw him, I did fall at his feet as dead, and he placed his right hand upon me, saying to me, `Be not afraid; I am the First and the Last, and he who is living, and I did become dead, and, lo, I am living to the ages of the ages. Amen! and I have the keys of the hades and of the death.

Do you realize this is one scene? The Speaker identifies Himself in v. 11 as “the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.” John turns to see who is speaking and sees “one like to a son of man” (other translations have “the Son of man”). Perhaps John is saying, "I saw someone who looked like Jesus." Then finally, in v. 17-18, the Speaker indeed identifies Himself as the One who is living and became dead and is now alive again forever.

Unitarians: I guess you identify the Alpha and Omega in v. 8 as Jehovah and v. 11 as Jesus? I guess you don’t see the term “the First and the Last” as a title equivalent to “the Alpha and Omega”? If so, you are definitely seeing something in the text that an ordinary reading doesn’t see because of your bias.

It’s a title ascribed to the Almighty. I didn’t think it needed a more precise definition to be understood. What about, “the one who is and who was and who to come”? Does that need to be defined? I guess we could talk about a precise definition but I don’t think that will change my point. The Alpha/Omega is self-described as “the Almighty (1:8) AND the First/Last (22:13). The First/Last is self-described as the one who was dead and is alive forever more (1:18). Again, there are either 2 people who are the first and last OR Jesus is the Almighty.

Conclusion: Scripture declares YHWH is the First and the Last and besides Me there is no God/YHWH. Christ is YHWH.

hope this helps !!!
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God.” These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified in the context as God, not Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:4-5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who is, was and is to come” and Jesus Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God.

The phrase “the Alpha and the Omega,” has caused many people to believe this verse refers to Christ. However, study of the occurrences of the phrase indicates that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies solely to God. Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha and Omega,’ or in Hebrew, Aleph and Tau.

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4). That would make the expression the figure of speech, polarmerismos, similar to "and there was evening, and there was morning” which stands for the whole day, in Genesis 1. The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words, “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation.
 
The compelling agent is God's faithfulness to his promise to his Son as described in Gal 3:16. God acts on his own accord and power.

An obstacle may occur in understanding Gal 3:16 due to the failure to recognize Paul's emphasis on Jesus being a recipient of the promise -- a promisee along with Abraham. Jesus then arrives in fulfillment of the promise to him (Gal 3:19) but, as underlying Jesus as a mediator, Jesus also is the key to reconciling humanity with God. That mediator and executor of the benefits to humanity seems to be what commentators focus on with Gal 3:16 instead of Jesus as a promisee.
An example follows:

Cole is not wrong in his observation but he misses the additional detail that Christ is also the promisee. Jesus had to become that offspring such that the blessings would come through him. Verse 19 fills in that detail too late to influence the commentators to recognize that verse 16 is saying the promise is (also) to Jesus.

@Capbook ,

Why do you suppose does @Peterlag still even read a bible when he believes it has been so bastardized?

To give the devil his due..... I just was checking on when this happened and look at what I found.

And if proven to be true........., then all translations have had Jesus lying when they all say Jesus instructed his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as part of the Great Commission, emphasizing the importance of making disciples of all nations. This command is found in Matthew 28:19-20.

@Capbook, not meaning to drag you into this but I , personally will dot have a direct dialog with @Peterlag ....

And I have absolutely no issues with the Trinity.... PERIOD....

But if this is true, someone... and not necessarily the Catholics... changed Matt 28: 19-20 and a very deep dive is needed.
Because if this is true... then every single person living or dead who would have been baptized under a formula that did NOT originate with Jesus... Matt 28: 19-20 might very well be not baptized as was the intention.

Blessings to all

Please look at the link here as I was unsuccessful to actually copy and paste so it could be read with clarity.






JESUS did , in fact, instruct us to be Baptized in the Name of the FATHER the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT

@Capbook

In fact, i am not a RCC member nor supporter.
 
Last edited:
@Capbook ,

Why do you suppose does @Peterlag still even read a bible when he believes it has been so bastardized?

To give the devil his due..... I just was checking on when this happened and look at what I found.

And if proven to be true........., then all translations have had Jesus lying when they all say Jesus instructed his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as part of the Great Commission, emphasizing the importance of making disciples of all nations. This command is found in Matthew 28:19-20.

@Capbook, not meaning to drag you into this but I , personally will dot have a direct dialog with @Peterlag ....

And I have absolutely no issues with the Trinity.... PERIOD....

But if this is true, someone... and not necessarily the Catholics... changed Matt 28: 19-20 and a very deep dive is needed.
Because if this is true... then every single person living or dead who would have been baptized under a formula that did NOT originate with Jesus... Matt 28: 19-20 might very well be not baptized as was the intention.

Blessings to all

Please look at the link here as I was unsuccessful to actually copy and paste so it could be read with clarity.





The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.
 
JESUS did , in fact, instruct us to be Baptized in the Name of the FATHER the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT

@Capbook

In fact, i am not a RCC member nor supporter.

@DavidTree
The link I posted says this... I managed to get it mostly copied by one paragraph at a time.

I also am not, nor ever was an RCC member. Nor would I be. But if they added to and changed things in the Holy Scriptures
we should know about it. And it certainly appears they did. Long after Jesus was crucified.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century. Jesus was crucified in the first
so we have only the bible to make the claim it was changed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


It goes on to say "IS IT AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY THAT THE NAME OF JESUS BE SPOKEN OR CALLED OVER A CANDIDATE FOR WATER BAPTISM WHEN HE IS BEING BAPTIZED? For the answer to this question, please read Acts 15:17 and James 2:7 [Greek Linear]. First Century Christians INVOKED OR CALLED the name of Jesus over believers in water baptism. If, as some say, "the name of Jesus means the authority of Jesus', then so much more should the NAME, rather than titles, be called over an individual in baptism. Read Matthew 28:18, Acts 4:12 and Colossians 2:9. Jude 3 is an exhortation to "CONTEND FOR THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS." See Galations 1:8-9 also. Should anyone dare to change what Christ and the Apostles established?

[td]

[td]


[/td]

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME​

According to History

BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.
BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.
CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. –
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Page 53.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS." Vol. 2, Page 377.
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378.
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. Vol. 8
HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Name was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property. "Ye are Christs." Vol. 2, Page 377 on Acts 2:38.
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLO. – The term "Trinity" was originated by Tertullian. A Roman Catholic Church Father. Vol. 22, Page 477.

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME​

According to The Bible​


[td]


JESUS TAUGHT – THAT REPENTANCE & REMISSION OF SINS SHOULD BE PREACHED IN HIS NAME BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." Luke 24:47

PETER OBEYED – "REPENT & BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS." Acts 2:38-39

SAMARITANS – ". . .THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 8:16

GENTILES WERE COMMANDED – "HE COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF LORD JESUS." RV. Acts 10:48

PAUL RE-BAPTIZED – ". . . WHEN THEY HEARD THIS THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 19:3-5

NO OTHER NAME FOR SALVATION – ". . .THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED." Acts 4:10-12


EVERYTHING DONE IN JESUS NAME – "WHATSOEVER YOU DO IN WORD OR IN DEED, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Col. 3:17

[/td]
[td]
The above scriptures are not given to refute Matthew 28:19 where JESUS told Apostles to baptize in the name of the FATHER, & OF THE SON, & OF THE HOLY GHOST. They merely show how the command was interpreted and obeyed by them.
The Apostles knew what most religious leaders of today fail to recognize. First: That the Lord Jesus Christ is the family name. Eph. 3:15. Second: That the FULNESS of the GODHEAD (Deity or God) dwelleth bodily in CHRIST. Col 2:9
They knew the name of the SON was JESUS. Matthew 1:21. They knew that the SON came in the FATHER'S name. John 5:43. They also knew that the HOLY GHOST was the SPIRIT of CHRIST and would come in JESUS NAME. John 14:26.


[/td]

[/td]


 
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus...

until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 – Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century.

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 – The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 – Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 – Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church.

Schaff – Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435 – The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 – It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
 
@DavidTree
The link I posted says this... I managed to get it mostly copied by one paragraph at a time.

I also am not, nor ever was an RCC member. Nor would I be. But if they added to and changed things in the Holy Scriptures
we should know about it. And it certainly appears they did. Long after Jesus was crucified.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century. Jesus was crucified in the first
so we have only the bible to make the claim it was changed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


It goes on to say "IS IT AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY THAT THE NAME OF JESUS BE SPOKEN OR CALLED OVER A CANDIDATE FOR WATER BAPTISM WHEN HE IS BEING BAPTIZED? For the answer to this question, please read Acts 15:17 and James 2:7 [Greek Linear]. First Century Christians INVOKED OR CALLED the name of Jesus over believers in water baptism. If, as some say, "the name of Jesus means the authority of Jesus', then so much more should the NAME, rather than titles, be called over an individual in baptism. Read Matthew 28:18, Acts 4:12 and Colossians 2:9. Jude 3 is an exhortation to "CONTEND FOR THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS." See Galations 1:8-9 also. Should anyone dare to change what Christ and the Apostles established?

[td]

[td]


[/td]

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME​

According to History

BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.
BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.
CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. – The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Page 53.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS." Vol. 2, Page 377.
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378.
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. Vol. 8
HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Name was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property. "Ye are Christs." Vol. 2, Page 377 on Acts 2:38.
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLO. – The term "Trinity" was originated by Tertullian. A Roman Catholic Church Father. Vol. 22, Page 477.

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME​

According to The Bible​


[td]


JESUS TAUGHT – THAT REPENTANCE & REMISSION OF SINS SHOULD BE PREACHED IN HIS NAME BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." Luke 24:47

PETER OBEYED – "REPENT & BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS." Acts 2:38-39

SAMARITANS – ". . .THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 8:16

GENTILES WERE COMMANDED – "HE COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF LORD JESUS." RV. Acts 10:48

PAUL RE-BAPTIZED – ". . . WHEN THEY HEARD THIS THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 19:3-5

NO OTHER NAME FOR SALVATION – ". . .THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED." Acts 4:10-12

EVERYTHING DONE IN JESUS NAME – "WHATSOEVER YOU DO IN WORD OR IN DEED, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Col. 3:17

[/td]
[td]
The above scriptures are not given to refute Matthew 28:19 where JESUS told Apostles to baptize in the name of the FATHER, & OF THE SON, & OF THE HOLY GHOST. They merely show how the command was interpreted and obeyed by them.
The Apostles knew what most religious leaders of today fail to recognize. First: That the Lord Jesus Christ is the family name. Eph. 3:15. Second: That the FULNESS of the GODHEAD (Deity or God) dwelleth bodily in CHRIST. Col 2:9
They knew the name of the SON was JESUS. Matthew 1:21. They knew that the SON came in the FATHER'S name. John 5:43. They also knew that the HOLY GHOST was the SPIRIT of CHRIST and would come in JESUS NAME. John 14:26.

[/td]

[/td]


Think my Brother = Think TRUTH = "Thy Word is Truth"

Dwell on His Name = LORD - JESUS - CHRIST = 3
 
@DavidTree
The link I posted says this... I managed to get it mostly copied by one paragraph at a time.

I also am not, nor ever was an RCC member. Nor would I be. But if they added to and changed things in the Holy Scriptures
we should know about it. And it certainly appears they did. Long after Jesus was crucified.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century. Jesus was crucified in the first
so we have only the bible to make the claim it was changed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


It goes on to say "IS IT AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY THAT THE NAME OF JESUS BE SPOKEN OR CALLED OVER A CANDIDATE FOR WATER BAPTISM WHEN HE IS BEING BAPTIZED? For the answer to this question, please read Acts 15:17 and James 2:7 [Greek Linear]. First Century Christians INVOKED OR CALLED the name of Jesus over believers in water baptism. If, as some say, "the name of Jesus means the authority of Jesus', then so much more should the NAME, rather than titles, be called over an individual in baptism. Read Matthew 28:18, Acts 4:12 and Colossians 2:9. Jude 3 is an exhortation to "CONTEND FOR THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS." See Galations 1:8-9 also. Should anyone dare to change what Christ and the Apostles established?

[td]

[td]


[/td]

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME​

According to History

BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.
BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.
CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. – The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Page 53.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS." Vol. 2, Page 377.
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378.
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. Vol. 8
HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Name was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property. "Ye are Christs." Vol. 2, Page 377 on Acts 2:38.
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLO. – The term "Trinity" was originated by Tertullian. A Roman Catholic Church Father. Vol. 22, Page 477.

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME​

According to The Bible​


[td]


JESUS TAUGHT – THAT REPENTANCE & REMISSION OF SINS SHOULD BE PREACHED IN HIS NAME BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." Luke 24:47

PETER OBEYED – "REPENT & BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS." Acts 2:38-39

SAMARITANS – ". . .THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 8:16

GENTILES WERE COMMANDED – "HE COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF LORD JESUS." RV. Acts 10:48

PAUL RE-BAPTIZED – ". . . WHEN THEY HEARD THIS THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 19:3-5

NO OTHER NAME FOR SALVATION – ". . .THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED." Acts 4:10-12

EVERYTHING DONE IN JESUS NAME – "WHATSOEVER YOU DO IN WORD OR IN DEED, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Col. 3:17

[/td]
[td]
The above scriptures are not given to refute Matthew 28:19 where JESUS told Apostles to baptize in the name of the FATHER, & OF THE SON, & OF THE HOLY GHOST. They merely show how the command was interpreted and obeyed by them.
The Apostles knew what most religious leaders of today fail to recognize. First: That the Lord Jesus Christ is the family name. Eph. 3:15. Second: That the FULNESS of the GODHEAD (Deity or God) dwelleth bodily in CHRIST. Col 2:9
They knew the name of the SON was JESUS. Matthew 1:21. They knew that the SON came in the FATHER'S name. John 5:43. They also knew that the HOLY GHOST was the SPIRIT of CHRIST and would come in JESUS NAME. John 14:26.

[/td]

[/td]


Speaking of baptism...

These words also are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th 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), Appendix A. p. 11.

1 John 3:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
Back
Top Bottom