To my fellow Bible-believing, posters,
A question of doubt was raised recently concerning the verse below.
Brethren, the short answer without a religious gas, does the opposite. It exposes the questioner in general and the JW/WBTS for their bankrupted views. In Paul's early, as well as later writings, all three Persons of the Godhead are mentioned together as co-sources of the blessings of salvation:
Above is Paul's way of underlining the essential interrelationship existing among The Godhead. It is pretty explicit:
This was Jesus' view, too, as reflected in Matthew 28:19:
It's my desire for @Bill_Coley, @BroRando, @theMadJW, Wolfgang, and any others, stubbornly holding on to their anti-trinitarian views, would read the Scriptures with an opened mind and heart Matt 28:19. There is unusual importance to this text. It impressively asserts the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by tightly joining Them as one single name, yet emphasizing the distinctiveness of each by repeating the definite article "the" in front of each of them.
The exact text they believe would embarrass Trinitians exposes their appalling view of the trinity. CM
Go . .. make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Name is in singular because Jesus was referring to himself as the Christ. Notice the change by the Hellenistic Church.
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Mathew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Mathew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Mathew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.
The City of Pagan Rome removed the words of Christ and inserted their hellenistic dogma of a triad of gods from the City of Pagan Rome. Scripture says that by the authority of Jesus, people would be told to turn to God and change the way they think and act so that their sins will be forgiven. This would be told to people from all nations, beginning in the city of Jerusalem. ‘…and on the basis of his Name, repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem.’ (Luke 24:46-47)
Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.
My Name is in singular and I have also in singular. Now lets use the surrounding scriptures.
“Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given ME in heaven and on the earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Hebrew Mat 28:18-20)
Don't be fooled by the AntiChrist, he is crafty. The trinity doctrine never acknowledges Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7)
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 second century.”
Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,070 languages of Bible Literature.
@C Mc posted:
It's my desire for @Bill_Coley, @BroRando, @theMadJW, Wolfgang, and any others, stubbornly holding on to their anti-trinitarian views, would read the Scriptures with an opened mind and heart Matt 28:19.
I don't hold on "stubbornly" to my views about the Trinity; I hold on to them willingly, and after much reflection, study, and prayer. I assume you hold on to your views about the Trinity similarly.
I believe I read Matthew 28.19 and all of Scripture with an open mind and heart; I assume you do also.
As for Matthew 28.19, while there is little manuscript evidence to support a claim of its later addition into Matthew's Gospel, I still think there's a strong case to be made for such a claim (specifically, the verse as part of the Matthew 28.16-20 pericope):
All that said, my views of Trinitarian theology aren't changed if Matthew 28.19 is original to the Gospel. I don't read the verse as the naming of co-equal components of a godhead; I read it as a liturgical pronouncement regarding the mechanism of baptism.
ONE MORE THING: What's different about you and me, CM, that you felt the need to describe my views about the Trinity as "appalling," and my holding on to those views as a product of stubbornness, but I feel no need whatsoever to describe your views of the Trinity and the reason(s) you hold them in such ways? Why do you want to call my views "appalling," while I want simply to say I respect your views, celebrate the faith that undergirds them, but disagree with them? Do you agree with me that there must be SOMETHING different about us that we respond to each others views so differently?
Do you agree with me that there must be SOMETHING different about us that we respond to each others [other's] views so differently?
Yes, no further comments. CM
Yes, no further comments.
Do you have any comments about the exegetical component of my previous post, the comments I offered about Matthew 28.19, the verse whose proper interpretation, so you claimed in your OP, "exposes [my] appalling view of the Trinity" ?
If Jesus was part of the pagan trinity, he would of never stated:
I got to looking back at the old Discourse, the range of people, who and when and possibilities of why they surfaced. Then who and when and perhaps why the old Discourse ended.
Then, I look at this site and, all I can say is them ouzzle pieces fit.
How sure are we that one person isn’t trying one more time to take on multiple personalities to destroy a site?
Hey, I’m just a visitor who came by with no intention to stay long, but even I can see that much.
I really could not care any less if I get kicked off this site. I can’t figure out why I come back anyway. And I’m not naming names. I’m not sure who is who.