[stmatthew]

POST 8. You should ask for your money back from that university, they gypped you.

You'd need to bring up two or three reputable manuscripts proving your claim (that is, showing us a manuscript dated around the 3rd or 4th century that shows your claim). If you can't do that, you would have to show us how it doesn't fit into the grammatical structure of the sentence, or what other "indicators" show it was added.

Secondly, to be "baptized into" a name simply meant you were a follower of that person. Under the Trinitarian view, if one is baptized into the name of Jesus, all this means is you admit to following Him and His beliefs - which would include a Trinitarian view. Matthew is speaking about power, being baptized into the actual power, the rest simply use the name of Jesus in order to create the typical Baptism setting.





POST 9. The Church that I am now a member of baptises according to Matt.28:19. "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." We all agree that this is Biblical.

However we also have some good Evangelical Churches in our city who fully believe in the trinity yet baptize in the name of Jesus only. The verse they use to prove it is also Biblical is Acts 2:38. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." So the fact is not all Churches who baptize in the name of Jesus only are of the Oneness faith. I personally prefer the Matt.28:19 way because it confirms clearly to the bystander what we believe. Whereas baptism in the name of Jesus only could sent a wrong trinitarian message. However it seems like both methods are Biblical.


POST 10. 325 at the First Counsel of Nicaea, early church fathers confronted the Arian heresy. Now, 1682 years later we still are having to fight this heresy. How sad.



POST 11. I guess that some of the things that concern me, regarding both oneness and trinitarian teaching, is that their proponents seem to think that they possess the truth. I don't think either one does.

Oneness people can be pretty smug about what they think is right, finding trinitarian-believers to be both humorous and ignorant. Yet my very long experience with them (since high school) is that they, for a huge portion of them, are very, very ignorant of the Scriptures, focusing on Acts 2, preaching incessantly on Acts 2, with little (or no) interest in the rest of the Bible. For the majority, they have all their arguments down regarding this one issue and their form of salvation (which almost invariably must include speaking in tongues). While Paul says that the gift of tongues is the least of the gifts, they disagree: their focus on tongues proves that.

Then there are the trinitarians: they are pretty smug sometimes in their thought that they have defined G-d, using the analogy of ice-to-water-to steam, the egg, etc., and calling the godhead "persons," separating them out into individuals one moment and thrusting them together in another. They base their idea upon an early invention of the R Catholic church one moment, then deny that concept in the next breath. Trinitarians, then, will go so far as to say that if one does not believe the trinitarian doctrine they cannot be saved, but they do not have it all together either! Accept the Nicean Creed or go to hell, they say. At least they are not so focused upon this one doctrine that they forget about the rest of the Bible.

For myself, I don't believe either doctrine is right. As soon as we think we can define G-d, we have lost it.