Jump to content
IGNORED

What is the doctrine of the Trinity?


angels4u

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Non-Trinitarian
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  62
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  842
  • Content Per Day:  0.47
  • Reputation:   111
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/24/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Hey Daniel Marsh,

 

Marsh is a unique name.   There is a family where I come from who owns several grocery stores called "Marsh."  You are not related to them by any chance?   If so, then you are related to me hahahahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  125
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  2,082
  • Content Per Day:  0.57
  • Reputation:   500
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/15/1956

On 5/24/2019 at 7:22 PM, childoftheking said:

Hey Daniel Marsh,

 

Marsh is a unique name.   There is a family where I come from who owns several grocery stores called "Marsh."  You are not related to them by any chance?   If so, then you are related to me hahahahahaha

Marsh became a common name due to plural marriage.   So, it is possible.

  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Trinitarian
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  62
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  842
  • Content Per Day:  0.47
  • Reputation:   111
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/24/2019
  • Status:  Offline

8 minutes ago, Daniel Marsh said:

Marsh became a common name due to plural marriage.   So, it is possible.

I never knew that.   Thank You for sharing that.   I know I am related from my Grandmother's side (Peirson's), but actually never studied the origin of the Marsh name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  125
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  2,082
  • Content Per Day:  0.57
  • Reputation:   500
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/15/1956

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Trinitarian
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  62
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  842
  • Content Per Day:  0.47
  • Reputation:   111
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/24/2019
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, Daniel Marsh said:

 

Do you agree the Apostles Peter, Timothy, and Paul...including Paul's letters Baptized in the Name of Yeshua in the Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament?

 

It is what the Greek Papyrus claims, that is 1600 years older than your KJV.

 

I therefore propose this question:

If the Apostles Baptized in Name of Yeshua.

Wouldn't it be logical they were following what the original passage of Matthew 28:19 claims, "In the Name of Yeshua?"

 

And Paul claimed, he DID NOTHING, WROTE NOTHING, SPOKE NOTHING and that it was ALL YESHUA GUIDING HIM!!

We see Paul Baptize in Name of Yeshua.

If Yeshua is GUIDING PAUL, and Paul Baptized in Name of Yeshua, that would make Yeshua a DOUBLE MINDED GOD ((if)) He actually did instruct to Baptize in the Trinity.

 

It's clear that Yeshua is not DOUBLE MINDED!!

Just as clear that Matthew 28:19 was changed like the proofs I offered.

 

Because Yeshua would not instruct His Disciples to Baptize 1 way and the Disciples as Apostles Baptized differently.

The same with Paul, Yeshua instructed Paul to Baptize in Yeshua's Name like Paul claimed Yeshua was GUIDING HIM.

 

They clearly OBEYED YESHUA!!

But they could ONLY have obeyed, if Matthew 28:19 ORIGINALLY said, to Baptize in Yeshua's Name!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  23
  • Topic Count:  133
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  2,864
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   2,596
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/07/2011
  • Status:  Offline

17 hours ago, childoftheking said:

Do you agree the Apostles Peter, Timothy, and Paul...including Paul's letters Baptized in the Name of Yeshua in the Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament?

 

It is what the Greek Papyrus claims, that is 1600 years older than your KJV.

 

I therefore propose this question:

If the Apostles Baptized in Name of Yeshua.

Wouldn't it be logical they were following what the original passage of Matthew 28:19 claims, "In the Name of Yeshua?"

 

And Paul claimed, he DID NOTHING, WROTE NOTHING, SPOKE NOTHING and that it was ALL YESHUA GUIDING HIM!!

We see Paul Baptize in Name of Yeshua.

If Yeshua is GUIDING PAUL, and Paul Baptized in Name of Yeshua, that would make Yeshua a DOUBLE MINDED GOD ((if)) He actually did instruct to Baptize in the Trinity.

 

It's clear that Yeshua is not DOUBLE MINDED!!

Just as clear that Matthew 28:19 was changed like the proofs I offered.

 

Because Yeshua would not instruct His Disciples to Baptize 1 way and the Disciples as Apostles Baptized differently.

The same with Paul, Yeshua instructed Paul to Baptize in Yeshua's Name like Paul claimed Yeshua was GUIDING HIM.

 

They clearly OBEYED YESHUA!!

But they could ONLY have obeyed, if Matthew 28:19 ORIGINALLY said, to Baptize in Yeshua's Name!!

This post is directed to childoftheking

 

Your whole argument against the tri-unity of the trinity is wrapped around Matthew 28:19.

"What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  499
  • Content Per Day:  0.19
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/06/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On 4/15/2019 at 9:25 PM, RR144 said:

I think a better question would be IS THE BELIEF IN THE TRINITY DOCTRINE ESSENTIAL TO OUR SALVATION?

Nope

But understanding how God works helps us to understand the importance of having His Spirit within us

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  499
  • Content Per Day:  0.19
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/06/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/19/2019 at 2:39 PM, childoftheking said:

It's a lie from the pits of hell, accepted by those who have no idea about the Hebrew Scriptures and meanings, nor about how the English Bible was manipulated and does not line up at all with the Original Greek nor the Latin Vulgate, that were in existence 1600 and 1100 years before the KJV was ever created!!

 

It irks me that people act and believe the English version Bible was the first Bible.   Most have no idea that the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew Canon, so they never read the Hebrew Canon to get educated.   Very little know that the New Testament Greek and the first translation of the Greek (Latin Vulgate) are word for word.   And when you compare the English KJV, there were changes to Matthew 28:19 and changes to 1 John 5:6-8.

 

KJV

1 John 5:

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

Greek

1 John 5:

 6 This is He Who is coming through water and blood and spirit - Jesus Christ - not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And the spirit it is which is testifying, for the spirit is the truth, 

7 seeing that three there are that are testifying, 

8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for the one thing."

 

Latin Vulgate (5th Century)

1 John 5:

6 hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas

This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. 
 

7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

And there are Three who give testimony

 

8  Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one. 

 

 

***As you clearly see, VERSE 7 of the original Greek and Latin Vulgate verify one another, and the KJV is nowhere close to the manuscripts that are 1100/1600 years older.   Obvious tampering by the English to add Father-Son-Holy Spirit to verse 7***

 

 

And we know in the 4th Century, Yeshua's words were changed from Baptize in MY NAME to the trinity version.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the fourth century."

 

With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, baptize and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

 

Who said to them; “Baptize and make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” — (Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159)

 

Even the Catholic Bible Catechism explains Matthew 28:19 was changed from Baptize in MY NAME to the trinity (I added a picture but its at bottom of page : read last paragraph)

 

 

Many have no idea that the word ELOHIM in the Hebrew Language means ONE , not plural.

Elohim in Biblical Hebrew and in Modern Hebrew, is referred to the singular despite the -im ending that denotes plural masculine nouns in Hebrew.

 

Many have no idea that in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image," is God speaking to His Divine Council.   And that God ALWAYS speaks to His Divine Council before making Decisions in matters pertaining to mankind and specifically during Creation.

Names of the Council

The gatherings of God’s servants have several titles:

(“mount of assembly” — Isa 14:13, a mythological allusion 7); (“camp of God” — Gen 32:2);  (“company” [of destroying angels] — Ps 78:49);  (“council of God” — Job 15:8, 29:4);  (“council of YHVH” — Jer 23:18, 22);  (“council of holy ones” — Ps 89:7); (“congregation of God”— Ps 82:1);  (“assembly of holy ones” — Ps 89:6); and (court, Dan 7:10, 26).

 

 

But the real question should be:

(1) why doesn't the KJV match the OLDER VERSIONS (Greek/Latin Vulgate)?

(2) why did the English change Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:6-8 to include the trinity?

(3) that is clearly disobeying the Command of DO NOT ADD OR REMOVE from God's Holy Word, so why did the English do it anyways?

(4) why doesn't the KJV align with the Hebrew on the meaning of Elohim?

(5) why doesn't the KJV make the Council known that God goes before in matters where He makes decisions, not clearer for readers?

(6) why does the KJV literally DECEIVE readers by changing the WORDS spoken to us by Yeshua (God)?

catholiccatechismbaptism.jpg

Last Paragraph explains when the Baptismal Formula was changed in the 4th Century ^ from "in MY NAME" to the trinity.

Is that book in the picture referring to what is said/ declared over someone at the time of baptism?

Or are you saying that the bible was somehow changed?....

....it does say in the photo the new "formula" became customary..

EDIT*****Never Mind...I just read the rest of the thread, I see and understand your reasoning. 

Edited by Mike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  125
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  2,082
  • Content Per Day:  0.57
  • Reputation:   500
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/15/1956

On 5/24/2019 at 6:56 PM, childoftheking said:

Read Last Paragraph, this is from a Booklet the Catholics used to send out to members.   Someone gave the copy I am using to my Grandfather, who passed it to my Father, and now I have it.

catholiccatechismbaptism.jpg

 

The third paragraph is not a baptismal formula.   The second paragraph already explains it is by the authority of Jesus as all the "In Christ" verses I posted.  

Now please, consider what the early church taught.

 

I followed the links for the above quotes.   I could not find your quote from the Catholic Encylopedia, see links at end.  But, I did find your one quote by (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius).

He did not write what you wrote or quoted.   That came from a footnote.   Not in the original text by Eusebius. 

" Matt, xxviii. 19. The verse is quoted thus seven times in the Demonstratio with the omission of the reference to Haptism and the Trinity. Conybcarc {Hibbcrt Jottnuil. i. (1902-3) p. 102), wlio holds that the reference was interpolated for doj^malic reasons, and was not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nica-a, supports his view from the practice of Euscbius. This is the view of Kirsopp Lake, E.R.E. ii. 3S0 and Moffatt, The Historical New Test. 1901, p. 647. The historicity of the words as ipsissima verba is denied by Harnack, Clemen, and J. .\. Robinson, Enc. Bif>l., art. " Ixiptisni.' I"'rom the Acts taken literally it would be gathered that apostolic Baptism was simply in tlie Name of Jesus. —(Acts viii. 12-16 ; ix. iS; xxii. 16, etc.) But the threefold formula occurs in the Didachc, ch. vii., and is supported by Jusiin Martyr, Apol. i. 61 and Irena'us, who, however, bases it not on Malt, xxviii. 19, but on tradition. (.\. Harnack, History of Doi^iita, ii. 22.) The textual authority of the text as it stands is unassailable, ani' tlie problem is to reconcile it with the statements in Acts," on page 20 of your source.  http://www.trinitytruth.org/proof-of-the-gospel_eusebius.pdf

 

s there.    Please provide exact page numbers in your quotes from the source you used.   Thanks, Daniel

These quotes below predate your claims,  and the site does give links to the sources. 

"

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. AD. 107-112)

Chapter IX.-The Old Testament is Good: the New Testament is Better.

… The priests indeed, and the ministers of the word, are good; but the High Priest is better, to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been entrusted with the secrets of God. The ministering powers of God are good. The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her. All these things tend towards the unity of the one and only true God. But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz. the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, His passion, and the resurrection itself. For those things which the prophets announced, saying, "Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles," have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company [of others] that have believed through them: only if we love one another. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians; source)

Chapter II.-Unity of the Three Divine Persons.

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians; source)

Irenaeus (ca. 130-200)

Chapter XVII.-The Apostles Teach that It Was Neither Christ Nor the Saviour, But the Holy Spirit, Who Did Descend Upon Jesus. The Reason for This Descent.

It certainly was in the power of the apostles to declare that Christ descended upon Jesus, or that the so-called superior Saviour [came down] upon the dispensational one, or he who is from the invisible places upon him from the Demiurge; but they neither knew nor said anything of the kind: for, had they known it, they would have also certainly stated it. But what really was the case, that did they record, [namely,] that the Spirit of God as a dove descended upon Him; this Spirit, of whom it was declared by Isaiah, "And the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him," as I have already said. And again: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me." That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For [God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaids, that they might prophesy; wherefore He did also descend upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ. (Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III; source)

Tertullian (ca. 160-220)

Chapter XX.-Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.

… Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost." Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as "the sent." … (Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics; source)

Chapter VI.-The Angel the Forerunner of the Holy Spirit. Meaning Contained in the Baptismal Formula.

Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared for the Holy Spirit. In this case also a type has preceded; for thus was John beforehand the Lord's forerunner, "preparing His ways." Thus, too, does the angel, the witness of baptism, "make the paths straight" for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains. For if "in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand:" -while, through the benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we have as sureties of our salvation too-how much more does the number of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise! Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under "three witnesses," there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three. (Tertullian On Baptism; source)

Chapter XIII.-Another Objection: Abraham Pleased God Without Being Baptized. Answer Thereto. Old Things Must Give Place to New, and Baptism is Now a Law.

Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, "Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith." But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added w the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," Hesaith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The comparison with this law of that definition, "Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens," has tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized. Then it was, too, that Paul, when he believed, was baptized; and this is the meaning of the precept which the Lord had given him when smitten with the plague of loss of sight, saying, "Arise, and enter Damascus; there shall be demonstrated to thee what thou oughtest to do," to wit-be baptized, which was the only thing lacking to him. That point excepted, he bad sufficiently learnt and believed "the Nazarene" to be "the Lord, the Son of God." (Ibid.; source)

Victorinus (ca. 270-303)

15. "And His voice as it were the voice of many waters."] The many waters are understood to be many peoples, or the gift of baptism that He sent forth by the apostles, saying: "Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John; source)"https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_mt28_20.htm

 

Your quote below only appears in threads here, thus it is questionable until you prove it from  http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q="The+baptismal+formula was+changed from+the+name+of+Jesus+Christ+to+the+words+Father%2C+Son%2C+and+Holy+Spirit+by+the+Catholic+Church+in+the+fourth+century"&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the fourth century."

https://www.google.com/search?q="The+baptismal+formula+was+changed+from+the+name+of+Jesus+Christ+to+the+words+Father,+Son,+and+Holy+Spirit+by+the+Catholic+Church+in+the+fourth+century"&filter=0&biw=1163&bih=483

http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q="baptismal+formula was+changed"&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  125
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  2,082
  • Content Per Day:  0.57
  • Reputation:   500
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/15/1956

You ignored the fact that,  "He did not write what you wrote or quoted.   That came from a footnote.   Not in the original text by Eusebius."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...