It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Commandment that wasn't Followed

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
There seems to be a lot of talk about the trinity lately... I was going to just make this a reply to another member in a different thread... but afterwords decided to finish the reply in my own thread and open it up to Christians who may be questioning said teaching


originally posted by: IsidoreOfSeville
a reply to: onequestion

Seeing as how you'll get a multitude of answers from this site, a non-religious website, you'd be better off going to your local church and asking. Or perhaps someone you may know that has a theology degree. In a nutshell, I don't think it wise to seek Christianity 101 type questions from this forum.
Best of luck to you on your journey.



Perhaps this is correct if one is asking to try and make sense of something that is completely illogical... Go to a Trinitarian church and they will show you all the so called "proof texts" for the trinity... What they won't show you is what disproves said triune God

I'll give you one that a reverend couldn't give a legit answer to

Lets assume for the sake of argument the one passage in the gospels that actually uses the Trinitarian formula is not an addition to the text...

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The gospel of matthew is assumed to be the second gospel written, and a lot of the information given was likely taken from Mark which is assumed to be the first one... and is actually dictated to John Mark by Peter

Pauls letters were written within a few decades of the death of Christ, as well as acts which is assumed to be written by Luke...

The commandment was to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

the question is... Why didn't anyone follow that commandment?

Within the rest of the New Testament, no one baptises using said Trinitarian formula... in fact no one even mentions it

Everyone that is baptised in the NT is done so "In the name of Jesus Christ"

And IF one reads carefully they will notice in every greeting in the letters of Paul... There is one of the three entities missing from the Trinitarian formula... that's right... Paul was NOT a Trinitarian

Lets have a look shall we?

Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 1:3)

Grace to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Rom. 1:7)

Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah" (2Cor. 1:2)

Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh the Father, and from our Master Yahshua Messiah" (Gal. 1:3)

Grace be to you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Eph. 1:2)

Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Phil. 1:2)

Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Col. 1:2)

Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah" (1Thess. 1:1)

Grace unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah" (2Thess. 1:2)

Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and Yahshua Messiah our Master" (1Tim. 1:2)

Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and Messiah Yahshua our Master" (2Tim. 1:2)

Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah our Saviour" (Tit. 1:4)


And IF one wants to get even deeper into said issue... Before the trintarians took over as the ruling theological school of thought in Christianity a man named Eusebius who was a church scholar, and eventually became a bishop used Matthew 28:19 in its correct form several times in his writing... "baptise in the name of Jesus Christ"... which was actually the way it was done in the NT

Its also known that Eusebius had access to a great library, which likely had better copies of early writing then we have today... Meaning he was using unedited material from before the Trinitarian take over

Interesting things to ponder... wouldn't you say?


edit on 24-8-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Only one? Seems to me that none of them have been followed.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Keep in mind we're not talking about Christians today...

This "commandment" wasn't followed specifically because it wasn't ever given in the first place...

Perhaps this belongs in the "conspiracies in Religion" forum?




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

There is no reason to mention the Holy Spirit after the death of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the Light if the world.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

This is what Paul understood. Pentecost was the time in which the man Jesus Christ returned to his followers in the form of the Holy Spirit.

The father and son are 2. But the Son is both physical Jesus and spiritual Christ, the name given to the Holy Spirit in the OT.
edit on 24-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Yet Jesus himself apparently felt the need to mention all three after his return...

By the way that was basically the same answer the reverend gave me... "an argument from silence"

Which means no argument... and the point where he actually started getting upset

Thanks for your reply




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I think the main point here is that they should baptize in "The Name of", and what is the name? Jesus Christ. As far as I know it's the Catholics who are really the only ones who baptize using Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I could be wrong about that though. I was baptized in the name of Jesus which is the correct way to do it. I'm sure the disciples understood what Jesus meant when he said "In The Name Of".



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Isurrender73

Yet Jesus himself apparently felt the need to mention all three after his return...

By the way that was basically the same answer the reverend gave me... "an argument from silence"

Which means no argument... and the point where he actually started getting upset

Thanks for your reply



But the reverend I imagine believes that Jesus is also God the father. I do not

Mathew 13:13
This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
edit on 24-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

uhmm... no it wasn't a parable my friend

Nice try though




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Isurrender73

uhmm... no it wasn't a parable my friend

Nice try though



The entire bible is riddled with both obvious and not so obvious parables.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ.
The revealing of the true nature of Jesus Chrsit. Revelation is not about when but about who is Jesus Christ.

The Light described in the Egyptian texts is Krist.
The Light in Hinduism is the Holy Spirit.
The Light is the OT is the Holy Spirit.
The Light in Buddhism is the Holy Spirit.
The Light in Zoroastrianism is the Holy Spirit.
The Quran calls Jesus the Word and Spirit from God the father. The Holy Spirit.

The only man in any religious text ever to declare himself the Light is Jesus Chrsit.

I will accept the prophets and Jesus Christ's testimony about himself over your opinion.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

You do that


But keep in mind your God has his own God




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

All your quotations of the greetings should be enough obvious proof for anyone that trinity teaching was added much later.
Along with hail Mary's. Jesus addressed his mother as "woman" in the scripture. He gave no special status or wished anyone to worship to her.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Jesus isn't the only one who is the Light.


Matthew 5
14 You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.


Jesus says that YOU are the Light as well. We can't go ignoring Jesus' words can we?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I believe we all are lights but there is only one perfect Light the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit shines perfectly within us.

The Sun is to the Moon as the Holy Spirit is to our Light.

As the moon reflects the sun, some of us our dim lights, only partial moons, while others are fully lit and shine bright like the full moon.

Should the full moons, the enlightened, hide themselves from the world in fear of persecution or shine bright for all to see? This is the meaning of the passage.
edit on 24-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I know this is a tough subject...

But I would appreciate contributions from our "more educated" members on this issue




edit on 25-8-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

It shines perfectly in us just as it shined perfectly in Jesus.

Also, Jesus was not the Holy Spirit if the Trinity is to be believed, he is the Son. The Son is the reflecting point of the outer and inner lights, much like your moon analogy. Inner light being the Holy Spirit or Father and outer light being the world or Mother.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP


The Trinity...a refined dogma 300 years in the faking...I mean making...
Smells as much as the idea of Mary being the Holy Mother Of God as the Catholics proclaim


en.wikipedia.org...


The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[11]
Scripture contains neither the word Trinity,[12] nor an expressly formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join