Three People in the God head??? It is what the Bible teaches!

If you are going to pick up this tactic again, I am going to have to challenge you again to prove that anybody was baptized in "Jesus name". But we already know that you can't prove it. Once again I will point out that the grammar of the passage in Mt 28 does not back up your argument Oneness.

Don you have let him trap you. The Son is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. It does not say that the Father died on the cross, nor does it say that the Holy Spirit died on the cross. Therefore, neither the Father or the Holy Spirit are the Son. So to say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all Jesus is flat out wrong. Jesus is only the Son. It is also for this reason we can not call the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit manifestations. Because while they are of one divine essence they are not the same. Remember, the Father did not become flesh and neither did the Holy Spirit. Only the Son became flesh.

[ June 04, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

Hey I ain't the one pushing a false interpretation. I asked you to provide a direct quotation which you failed to provide, plus the fact Acts 8:14-17 says that baptism in Jesus Name is an invalid baptism.

I am worried about Don because he is falling for your false theology.

After carrying on this conversation for several months now, I would think this answer would be obvious. The Bible clearly states the names of the three persons of God.

 

Acts 8 - They did not recieve the Holy Spirit because the were only baptized in Jesus name. Sounds pretty invalid to me.

I guess that makes you Satan's tool since Satan is the Father of lies.

I know preschoolers who could answer this question. The Father, the Son, The Holy Ghost are the names of the three persons of God. Jesus is only the name for the Son. The underlying Greek does NOT support your false assertion.

 

just out of curiosity--so if Don has admitted that he was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, what's the problem?

[ June 05, 2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: 1Peter4:11 ]

 

Those people in Acts 8 believed, but the passage clearly states that they did not recieve the Holy Spirit because they were baptized into Jesus name only.

Oh come now, must you once again resort to the lies told about the Trinitarian doctrine. When talking of the nature of God three persons does not equal three gods. Of course I am still waiting for you to accept my challenge and actually read materials on the Trinity by Trinitarian theologians not the lies that oneness "theologians" tell. If you forgot the title here it is again The Living God by Thomas Oden.

 

do i need to ask my question again, or are you guys here just to argue?

 

If you know it so well why do you keep missing the point of the Trinitarian doctrine so badly?

The only thing "Oneness theologians" got right was the very basic, there is one God, but when it comes to explaining the revealed nature of God they completely missed the boat. So, to cover their inability to explain certain key passages they completely misrepresent the teaching of the Trinity and spread their seditious lies.

If you want the least bit of credability for this argument you are going to have to provide a direct quote of somebody saying " I baptize you in Jesus name". But like I said earlier you can't provide it because it doesn't exist.

So I guess that means Jesus advocated an invalid teaching, because He said to baptize in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and the Greek backs me up on this so you might as well go back to the drawing board and chalk this up to being a losing argument on your part.

I don't have a problem with it, that is how Christ instructed us to baptize people. The problem arose with Don saying that the name of all three persons is Jesus, which it is not. I explained this in a previous post.

 

I would of died laughing, if it wasn't so sad to see somebody so mired in false doctrine.

I have studied the historical teachings of the Trinity. I admire those men for standing up in the face of heresy and denouncing it for what it is, a lie.

So hows it any different from your little copout saying you would convert if somebody could provide proof of a baptism using the Trinitarian formula.

Jn 14:6 "... No one comes to the Father except through me."

Because we were commanded to baptize in the names of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

You know I was trying to be nice and not make you look like too much of a fool, but you forced my hand. While it is a literal word for word translation of the greek text it does not accurately reflect english grammer. Greek commonly uses singular tenses to modify multiple items if they are also in the singular. So literally we could translate the greek as "Baptizing in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit" or "Baptizing in the names of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" would also be an accurate reflection of the Greek grammer in correct English grammer.

To learn, understand, and translate Greek one must have a firm grasp on English grammar. So attempts to insult my understanding of English grammar are wasted, particularly coming from somebody who's spelling is worse than mine.

Some five hundred years ago Luther showed to the world the folly of relying on a translation for the formation of doctrine. It seems the oneness people have fallen for the same trick in relying on the English, that the RCC had in relying on the Latin

Well since they never actually baptized anybody in Jesus Name that is a hard claim for you to make, still waiting for that direct quote.

I know I have been trying to get you to see the truth of the Trinitarian doctrine for sometime now, but you keep relying on the teachings of false prophets.

I never said they repented, I said they believed. Acts 19 is that the best you can come up with, boy you must be hard up because there is still nothing that says the apostles said " I baptize you in the name of Jesus. Plus the people in Acts 19 had to have repented because they were baptized in John's baptism previously and that was a baptism of repentance.

 

>>> Jesus told his deciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when everyone was baptized in the Name of Jesus. <<<

i see what you're trying to say here, but it begs a question: what's the difference between baptizing in the name of Jesus and teaching in the name of Jesus? or speaking in the name of Jesus? or preaching boldly in the name of Jesus? see Acts 4:18, 5:40, 9:27

are you saying that if i baptize someone and say, "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," that's not good enough?

if that's true, then must i also start every sermon with "i preach to you in the name of Jesus"? or every time i teach sunday school, i should start with "i teach you in the name of Jesus"? or when i speak about Him, i need to say, "i speak in the name of Jesus"?

let me ask this: does baptism save you?

if yes, then you should really be a catholic or a lutheran, and i completely understand why the words are so important to you.

if no, then why such an emphasis on the importance of the words?

 

This is an interesting verse, because it's apparantly the only place in the Bible where all three (father, son, and holy spirit) are referenced at same place and time. There are places where Jesus and Father God are referenced, or where Father God and the Spirit are referenced, but not all three.

 

2 Cor.13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

There are also other passages as well, sometimes spread over two or three verses.

Much of this problem revolves around the concept of "Persons". People think of separate, self-conscious "people" (or "beings"), and often, the Trinitarians use as proofs things such as "Us" to prove this. Many scholars and apologists, such as even James White are acknowledging that "Persons" did not quite mean what it means to us today, and was in fact close "masks" as a oneness would put it. They now deny that God is a "committee" of separate beings. Yet still, in defending some amount of distinction and "relationship" between the three "members" they do often sound like they are describing a divine committee or council.
What is most interesting is that the pre-Nicene fathers hael a position called "economic trinitarianism". Instead of an eternal [symmetrical] "trio", God was the Father, and the Son or Logos was the physical manifestation of God on earth, and the Spirit was the spiritual manifestation of God in men's hearts. The "communication" between the Father and eternal Logos was compared to a single man's thinking to himself (Hippolytus, Tertullian)
Then of course, the incarnate Son, who had taken on a human nature, became a self-conscious "other" (though still retaining His divine nature) and could pray to the Father, sit down at His right hand after His glorification, etc. "God manifested in the Flesh" (1 Tim.3:16) was the real "mystery", not "three in one".
I think we all should look back into the pre-Nicene position. It seems to answer alot of this dispute.
One of the big problems with the oneness position (modalistic monarchianism) is that when you press them to explain Jesus praying to the Father, they sometimes wind up splitting Jesus into a purely human entity merged with a divine "Son" or "Christ". But now, you've denied Christ's deity and have crossed from modalisitc monarchianism to dynamic monarchianism (the "adoptionism" of the heretic Paul of Samosata and modern goups like the
way International and christadelphians).
The issue of Baptism is so ridiculous because Father, Son and Spirit includes Jesus. It's not like the Father and Spirit were different gods, or you were trying to baptize in Brahma, Jesus, and Osiris to say those so baptized are not in Christ.

[ June 06, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

>>> The issue of Baptism is so ridiculous because Father, Son and Spirit includes Jesus. It's not like the Father and Spirit were different gods, or you were trying to baptize in Brahma, Jesus, and Osiris to say those so baptized are not in Christ. <<<

yep!

 

1 Tim 3:16
16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

KJV

It as never intended to be a mystery to the church for we find the scripture goes on to explain this mystery. Jehovah God was manifest in the flesh. The God that created the universe put on flesh and come to this world. No where does the scripture teach that he was co-equal. But it teaches that Jesus, was God manifest in the flesh.

 

This topic is about the Godhead, if you look up Godhead in your stongs you'll find that it means deity... replace deity when you read Godhead and you'll find a whole new meaning.