THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

I would agree, Jesus is the one who died for our sins. The context of being baptized in the name of Jesus makes more sense.

Does Jesus still have that authority? Doesn't he keep it until he returns, defeats Satan and death? Then turns his kingdom over to his Father?

1 Corinthians 15:28
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
When you realize this.... you then realize that someone forced doctrine back into antiquity in order to try to create a doctrine. Eusebius was charged with the task of writing 50 bibles "standardized" that the Council had decided was inspired. They were trying to unite the country because division was so bad over doctrine in the area that commerce and economy was being greatly effected. Constantine did not care or believe either way initially, he just wanted it resolved. Like it is in politics today. So much division. So they hand picked which books, which wording, and deemed any other writing outside of their "standardized" version was a crime to own, a capitol offense. It honestly worked. Because Christianity became the new popular thing. It was no longer looked down on but rather became the latest movement. They had book burnings in the streets. Everybody opposing, went to the closets, not to come out any longer and the Nicene Creed standard was now right doctrine by snuffing out the opposition. LOL, later, Constantine converted to Christianity, but from the Arian viewpoint. Back to the point. Eusebius, the local historian, did as he was told. He had access to the writings in question. And up until a point, he never used F, S and HS. He used "in my name". But he was not part of the decision making, only a hired hand to make the copy's. What I find interesting is that Valentinous, a man considered a knostic heritic, his beliefs came up at the council when someone tried to discredit Arius by means of association, like they are doing Trump to Putin, and they spelled out exactly why, by what they said Valentinous believed. LOL, the exact version of the trinity as we know it today. So, If they believed... if they had decided to use F, S and HS in the standardized bibles, why then was Valentinous's beliefs brought up as an insult. Only two possibilities. Either this story I just told was inserted into antiquity.... or the 3 part baptismal was inserted into antiquity. There is corruption present. So then, as a bible detective, I can't believe either as fact. I have to look at context..... And the context is clearly, "in my name"......................
 

Madman

Senior Member
I think you missed the point.... If he said "all authority has been given to me [to ME] therefore go baptize in my [MY] name" works. It don't work to say "authority has been given to me therefore go in multiple names. It clearly fits or works better this way. This you should acknowledge. You don't need to say that I'm right doctrine wise, but to deny your version is awkward.... well, that shows signs of someone whom realizes they have only a small handfull of proof texts, so they are not willing to let even one slip away. You would think that among so much writing in the bible, that it would not be such a small amount?
I must have missed it, for that I apologize. Here is my point; the church has always baptized with a trinitatian recipe. Water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the intent of washing away sins, and bringing the person into the church. I guess the Unitarian link threw me off.
 
"unbiased Bart Erhman"🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
People tend to see someone whom believes differently than themselves as biased. It's human nature. But actually, it's the person claiming biased, because they base it solely on the fact that their own belief is different. Bart as a historian does believe that the longer version, F, S and HS were original to the text, yet he is agnostic. I call that an unbiased claim. He also wrote a book trying to prove the existence of Jesus as a real person in history, that was just as the bible writes about, not a mythological figure. It's rather refreshing to see someone free from biases. What people don't realize about Bart, is that he does not at all, in any way, try to deter Christianity. Actually, as much as I would like to have a sit down with him to explain some points, he claims that Jesus did claim to be God, in the bible. My point in bringing this up.... Bart is considered as a opposition, but actually, he would make the best sunday school/bible teacher you have ever met multiplied by 10. Seriously. He could teach you the festivals, the traditions, the fall of rome....... The travels of Paul..... The oppositions the Christians faced. Seriously, you guys should not resist what you don't know. His job as a historian, is to study history. And the bible... is included in that history.
 
Thread starter #128
The Jesus only sect, who contend that baptism should be only in Jesus' name, and who deceitfully prey upon honest and ignorant souls, may claim they obey Matt. 28:19, but they never obey it; they never recognize it in baptism ; and they always rebaptize those who have been baptized according to Matt.28:19. If they claim to obey Matt. 28:19, then insist that they baptize you the way and see how they back down in their claim and see a concrete example of deliberate rejection of part of the Bible. Could not Jesus have said in Matt. 28:19, what Jesus-only people teach, if that is really what He meant to say? If He did not say what they teach, then that is not He means, and we had better reject their fallacy on baptism and obey Matt. 28:19. We must either reject this false teaching or reject God. One cannot believe and obey both, for they are just the opposite of each other.
The preposition of and the conjunction and repeated each time before each of the three names in Matt. 28:19 further prove three separate persons. If one would say "a gift of John and of James and of George" he means a gift from three persons, not one. Jesus did not say baptize upon the authority of His name only, but also in the name of, or by the authority of, the Father and of the Holy Ghost. He did not tell them to do this until He came back in ten days as the Holy Ghost, as Jesus-only people teach, but He did say, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . . even unto the end of the world." There would have been no better time than right here for Jesus to have frankly told the disciples that He was the only God and Father and the Holy Ghost and all God, but instead He revealed three separate persons in the Godhead.
 
The Jesus only sect, who contend that baptism should be only in Jesus' name, and who deceitfully prey upon honest and ignorant souls, may claim they obey Matt. 28:19, but they never obey it; they never recognize it in baptism ; and they always rebaptize those who have been baptized according to Matt.28:19. If they claim to obey Matt. 28:19, then insist that they baptize you the way and see how they back down in their claim and see a concrete example of deliberate rejection of part of the Bible. Could not Jesus have said in Matt. 28:19, what Jesus-only people teach, if that is really what He meant to say? If He did not say what they teach, then that is not He means, and we had better reject their fallacy on baptism and obey Matt. 28:19. We must either reject this false teaching or reject God. One cannot believe and obey both, for they are just the opposite of each other.
The preposition of and the conjunction and repeated each time before each of the three names in Matt. 28:19 further prove three separate persons. If one would say "a gift of John and of James and of George" he means a gift from three persons, not one. Jesus did not say baptize upon the authority of His name only, but also in the name of, or by the authority of, the Father and of the Holy Ghost. He did not tell them to do this until He came back in ten days as the Holy Ghost, as Jesus-only people teach, but He did say, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . . even unto the end of the world." There would have been no better time than right here for Jesus to have frankly told the disciples that He was the only God and Father and the Holy Ghost and all God, but instead He revealed three separate persons in the Godhead.
I don't think they are deceitful, just what they believe. The way you are describing them could be perceived as deceitful.

What they believe is the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is "Jesus." They view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as titles of the one God. That the one God incarnate as Jesus, not the already existing one third of a co-equal Godhead known as Son.

I'm not saying you should agree with them but at least learn what they actually believe if you are going to teach against them.
 

Madman

Senior Member
I don't think they are deceitful, just what they believe. The way you are describing them could be perceived as deceitful.

What they believe is the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is "Jesus." They view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as titles of the one God. That the one God incarnate as Jesus, not the already existing one third of a co-equal Godhead known as Son.

I'm not saying you should agree with them but at least learn what they actually believe if you are going to teach against them.
If one is not baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then it is not a valid baptism.
 
What do verses mean that say we were baptized into Christ? I noticed Paul says it that way a lot. That if we were baptized into Christ we were also baptized into his death?

Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

It's almost like being baptized into Christ, although representing a new birth, also represents death. The death of Christ and the death of our old self.
 
Baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It also represents our death, burial, and resurrection, thereby our new birth.

I just see it as being more about representing Jesus than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each entity has it's role but Jesus is the one we are baptized into. Our rebirth into Christ. Our union with Christ.

The baptism part is all about Jesus.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It also represents our death, burial, and resurrection, thereby our new birth.

I just see it as being more about representing Jesus than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each entity has it's role but Jesus is the one we are baptized into. Our rebirth into Christ. Our union with Christ.

The baptism part is all about Jesus.
Baptism is not just a symbol, as so many claim. According to the Bible, it is a marvelous grace--a great gift from God, which we do not deserve in the least and which washes away our sins, bestows upon us the Holy Spirit, grants us new life in Christ, and absorbs us into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. As even Martin Luther himself put it, baptism "works the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare" (Short Catechism).
 
I don't think they are deceitful, just what they believe. The way you are describing them could be perceived as deceitful.

What they believe is the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is "Jesus." They view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as titles of the one God. That the one God incarnate as Jesus, not the already existing one third of a co-equal Godhead known as Son.

I'm not saying you should agree with them but at least learn what they actually believe if you are going to teach against them.
Still makes no sense.... All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me...... Given. If he was God, then why would it be given to him, would it not already be his?
 
Still makes no sense.... All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me...... Given. If he was God, then why would it be given to him, would it not already be his?
I'm not agreeing with the Oneness belief, just showing what they believe. I would agree that if Jesus was the Father incarnate, he would not need to be granted authority.

Just saying regardless of his origin, Jesus has the authority. Jesus is the one who died. We are baptized in his death and resurrection.

So why do you think Matthew says in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
 
Still makes no sense.... All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me...... Given. If he was God, then why would it be given to him, would it not already be his?
What about the Son? Even if he "was" the actual son of God? If God magically impregnated a virgin? Gave him some type of male DNA.

Suppose he's not a pre-existing part of the Godhead but a pre-exisiting part of God's Word. In other words he only pre-existed in God's mind/word. He was perhaps already created as we were in those seven days of Creation.

Wouldn't he still need to be given authority from his Father? Considering that he was/is a son? There is no equality in a father/son relationship.

The authority gave him the image of his father. If you have seen me, you have seen my Father.
 
I'm not agreeing with the Oneness belief, just showing what they believe. I would agree that if Jesus was the Father incarnate, he would not need to be granted authority.

Just saying regardless of his origin, Jesus has the authority. Jesus is the one who died. We are baptized in his death and resurrection.

So why do you think Matthew says in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Yea, I realize that, I was refering to the post you were referring to. second point, see next post. I don't think Matthew ever said F,S and HS. It was a later addition by the trin camp to try to force a doctrine. The evidence is there in history but mainly in context.
 
What about the Son? Even if he "was" the actual son of God? If God magically impregnated a virgin? Gave him some type of male DNA.

Suppose he's not a pre-existing part of the Godhead but a pre-exisiting part of God's Word. In other words he only pre-existed in God's mind/word. He was perhaps already created as we were in those seven days of Creation.

Wouldn't he still need to be given authority from his Father? Considering that he was/is a son? There is no equality in a father/son relationship.

The authority gave him the image of his father. If you have seen me, you have seen my Father.
God would not impregnate a virgin. Steal Joseph bride for his use. So many problems. How if the HS came upon Mary, is the HS not the Father rather than the Father? The virgin story is a much later addition. The epistles never mentioned it. It was added later due to not real life but a reverse hindsight, interpretation of scriptures. The story of God's helping an underdog King to win..... so that he would know that it was by God's might, not his own, was..... not that a virgin... which is not able to be proved.... no one really knows who a virgin is... so why would that be a sign.... no the story has to do with time. In the OT days, wars were won by man power. Counting heads.. In time, the underdog kings man power would never increase to the point of being able to stand up to the opposition. Even if his man power increases, so does the opposition. He could never expect to win.... [parallel picture of battle against sin] but God said ask for a sign.... but he did not therefore God gave him a sign. In the amount of time.... from conception to weaning off, he would be victorious over his opposition. This would be a clear sign that he as a king, did not do this. Clearly in 3 or 4 years, he could not conquer his openet. But he did.... thus he knew "God is with us". It had nothing to do with virgin. Even CARM acknowledges that the word is maiden, not virgin. So this gives you a sense of dating of the writing of Matthew once you realize how it got written into Matthew as a wrong interpretation of the OT. More, if Jesus is not the son of Adam, then he could not be the coming Christ. OT lineage was never, son of a woman. it was always son of a man. Women were nothing notable in that day. All through the scriptures, we see son of Seth, son of Abram, son of... a man. Never a woman. No, Jesus was Adams biological son. Yet was the Son of God through adoption, the first born from the dead, firstborn of many brothers. Modern Christianity has not the slightest clue what's in the OT. They have no idea what the term "Son of God" means.
 
Top