Through the Bible: Genesis

[Guest]

Noah didn't have to measure it. This was written by Moses, under inspiration. So the angel of the Lord, or the Holy Spirit measured it, so that it could be written about accurately.

Quote:

Notice that even Saint Paul, who had stated that there wasn’t anyone righteous, did make a reference to Abraham as a righteous man. Doesn’t this suggest that being righteous can have more than one connotation?

It simply means that everyone has sinned at some point, with no exceptions. So even if you have stopped sinning, you are still a sinner, because you have sinned in the past. The only way anyone can be counted as righteous, is through the blood of Jesus Christ. Whether you were looking forward to it, like Abraham was, or whether you are looking back on it like Paul was. And like we are.

What version of the Bible are you using Nic?

[Nic Samojluk]

Noah didn't have to measure it. This was written by Moses, under inspiration. So the angel of the Lord, or the Holy Spirit measured it, so that it could be written about accurately.

That is one possibility; the other alternative is that Noah somehow managed to measure it. Do you believe that when Bible writers were inspired to record something for posterity, they became infallible?

If you believe this, how do you explain the fact that we have four inspired Gospels, and no biblical scholar has been able so far to produce a perfect chronology of the activity of Jesus during his ministry on earth?

How about the disagreement between Saint Paul and Saint James over the role of faith and works? How about Paul’s view of God’s sovereignty which, according to him, led the Lord to harden the heart of Pharaoh in order to show his power? Do you agree with this view of Paul, or do you prefer the other passages of Scripture where it is stated that Pharaoh hardened his heard himself?

Does this mean that these passages were not inspired because they contain inaccuracies, or could it be that inspiration does not guarantee infallibility and that God expects even inspired men to do some of the hard work themselves?

[Nic Samojluk]

It simply means that everyone has sinned at some point, with no exceptions. So even if you have stopped sinning, you are still a sinner, because you have sinned in the past.

[Nic Samojluk]

The only way anyone can be counted as righteous, is through the blood of Jesus Christ.

[Guest]

Do you agree with my statement here?:

Noah didn't have to measure it. This was written by Moses, under inspiration. So the angel of the Lord, or the Holy Spirit measured it, so that it could be written about accurately.

[Nic Samojluk]

Do you agree with my statement here?:

Noah didn't have to measure it. This was written by Moses, under inspiration. So the angel of the Lord, or the Holy Spirit measured it, so that it could be written about accurately.

[Felix Florimon]

Originally Posted By: Felix

Through Psalm 8:5, we learn that man was created a little lower than the angel. If we were created a “little lower than the angels” and our bodies are temple of the Holy Spirit, we could surely say that the body of any angel sent by God is also a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Were you aware that the original Hebrew does not say angel, but rather “e•lo•him,” which is a direct reference to God? This is why some modern translators have rendered the text as follows:

Quote:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

This means that your argument breaks down, because God does not need to be full of the Holy Spirit. He is Spirit according to the Bible.

Quote:

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24]

[Felix Florimon]

The way I see the “Trinity” is in the following way:

We have to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) because

Quote:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Here we have the Father and the Son working together for our salvation. The work of the Holy Spirit in us is described by the Lord Jesus in John 14:26 and by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:30.

Now, by following a “linear way of thinking purely derived from what we learn in the Bible,” the following is another way to see the Trinity: Jesus the Son comes from the Father. Before time and space were created, the Son was one with the Father. At time “0” “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” comes from the Father with an angelic form becoming the firstborn of all creation and He begins the creation of a universe that is non visible to us including the other angels of creation.

After Lucifer begins a process of rebellion against God's government, man was not only created “a little lower than the angels” also, our three-dimensional universe in which we are able to interact has to be “a little lower” than the “non visible universe” in which the angels live and interact with each other and with God. God is Spirit since He is mostly interacting in this non-visible created universe. Before the firstborn became the firstborn of all creation, He was with God and He was God. As soon as He became the “firstborn” of all creation, He began to create space and time. However, in order to keep a uniform communication or integrity of how things should follow, the Spirit of the Father or the Holy Spirit also lived within “the firstborn” of all creation. This is the same Holy Spirit that Jesus said that His Father was going to send to His disciples, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of the Lord.

The reason many people believe that the universe is millions of billions of years old is because we are only able to measure things in a three dimensional universe that has been created “a little lower” than a non invisible universe and we don’t have the means to our disposal so we could in any way measure how this non visible universe may affect the universe we are able to see or measure. In our “linear kind of thinking” the age of life on this earth and the age of the universe is purely based on our ability to measure in a lab the rate of variability within living organisms and the rate of distance variability that we are able to measure between our planet and other distal celestial bodies. Our scientific community is not able to accept that our three dimensional universe and we have been created “a little lower” than another kind of universe with its inhabitants or that such universe has any bearing on how things have worked in our known universe.

FF

[Nic Samojluk]

You are being misled by your wrong perception about the Holy Spirit.

[Nic Samojluk]

Even though the word “trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible, this concept comes to us from Jesus when He instructed His disciples to baptize new followers in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original.

"There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (tou kuriou Iesou; Acts 8:16; 19:5).

Source: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

Quote:

The Genuine Original Baptismal Formula

!. Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus. [Acts 2:38]

2. They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16]

3. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. [Acts 10:48]

4. On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. [Acts 19:5]

5. Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [Rom. 6:3]

6. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [Gal.3:27]

Source: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

[Nic Samojluk]

The Original Hebrew Copy of the Matthew Gospel

Quote:

According to Eusebius, it was reported that Pantaenus had been a missionary in India (perhaps meaning Ethiopia) and there had met Christians who claimed to have received St. Matthew's gospel in Hebrew from St. Bartholomew.

Source: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=808

Quote:

It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. How this was preserved and handed down we do not know. In fact, it does not matter. It exists and that is proof enough that God wanted it preserved.

There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel for obvious reasons. It is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript.

Claims that it is spurious are of course self-serving to Trinitarians. Such denials make Jesus say what he did not say. This of itself is an abomination. It is a sin to make Jesus say a Trinitarian baptismal formula and put into his mouth their Trinitarian godhead doctrine fabricated at Nicaea in 325AD.

Now that this manuscript is known among the Apostolic Oneness, we will promote the fact that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19 and the Catholics in general (including the Eastern Orthodox) have lied to the world.

Source: http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

[Nic Samojluk]

The Dogma of the Trinity Questioned

Quote:

Critics also argue the doctrine, for a teaching described as fundamental, lacks direct scriptural support, and even some proponents of the doctrine acknowledge such direct or formal support is lacking.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]"[14], "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century"[15].

Similarly, Encyclopedia Encarta states: "The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father. [...] The term trinitas was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of the debates on the nature of Christ [...]. In the 4th century, the doctrine was finally formulated"[11].

Encyclopedia Britannica also says: Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

"All nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity (see Apostolic Age) was not Trinitarian. Typically, nontrinitarians explain that Christianity was altered as a direct and indirect consequence of the edicts of Constantine the Great, which resulted in the eventual adoption of Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Because it was at this time of a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically find the doctrine questionable. It is in this light that the Nicene Creed is seen by nontrinitarians as an essentially political document, resulting from the subordination of true doctrine to State interests by leaders of the Catholic Church, so that the church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire."

"Although nontrinitarian beliefs continued to multiply, and among some people (such as the Lombards in the West) were dominant for hundreds of years after their inception, the Trinitarians gained the immense power of the Roman Empire. Nontrinitarians typically argue that the primitive beliefs of Christianity were systematically suppressed (often to the point of death), and that the historical record, perhaps also including the Scriptures of the New Testament, was altered as a consequence. Nontrinitarian followers of Jesus fall into roughly four different groups: ..."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

Link: http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Triniy.htm

[Nic Samojluk]

He also warned about the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.

[Nic Samojluk]

We have to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) because

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Are you aware that Eusebius, who carefully investigated this issue, concluded that the triune formula we find in Matthew 28:19 did not exist in the original Hebrew text? "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

That makes no sense, Nic. Of course it did not exist in the original Hebrew text. Why? Because the original text was not in Hebrew but in koine Greek.

Besides, can you show a single Greek text of the book of Matthew that ends without Matt. 28: 19?

All Greek manuscripts of that Gospel show Matt. 28: 19 is a genuine part of the Bible. There are no variants here.

I've seen what you say about this on other Forums by people who teach against the Trintiy. It's interesting to me that they find it necessary to take legitimate verses out of the Bible in order to support their views.

No doubt that is because this verse makes it absolutely certain that it's talking about three distinct and separate persons in the Godhead. The rule of Greek grammar leaves no question of this whatsoever.

[John317]

Nic Samojluk: Can we build a doctrine on a single text, or on a few texts supported by a wrong perception of a non-existent Trinity which we inherited from the Catholic Church? If we accept this invention of Rome, perhaps we should also accept Rome’s deception about Sunday worship and the Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit is co-equal with God the Father!

Since the Adventist Church inherited this doctrine from the Catholic Church, we need to add a detail which we find in the Catholic Encyclopedia: " ...the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."

My friend, Nic, I thought you said you had no burden to convince people of this.

Evidently you do, so let me add a few things, if I may:

1) The doctrine of the Trinity is not built on a single text. Far from it. In fact, even without Matt. 28: 19 or 1 John 5: 7, there is plenty of biblical evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity as SDAs understand it and express it in the Fundamental Beliefs. The evidence of the Bible is that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. None of them is "a god," but is God. That is the essence of the doctrine of the Trinity.

2) SDAs didn't inherit the doctrine of the Trinity from the Roman Catholic Church. We get it out of the Holy Bible.

3) In her writings and in her sermons and talks, Ellen White, the prophet of God, clearly supports the Trinity. Let anyone look closely at Ev. 614-617.

4) We SDAs don't get our view of the Trinity from the creeds. Again, we base our views of the Godhead on the Bible.

[Nic Samojluk]

That makes no sense, Nic. Of course it did not exist in the original Hebrew text. Why? Because the original text was not in Hebrew but in koine Greek.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

There are three major biblical manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew that are written in Hebrew; the Shem Tov Matthew, the DuTillet Matthew, and the Munster Matthew. All of these are late mediaeval texts as opposed to the Gospel According to the Hebrews which was a work of the Early Church.

A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

Some scholars have argued that these medieval Hebrew manuscripts may have been descended (without any intervening translation) from ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, which were used by early Christians in the first or second century, but were nearly extinct by the time of Jerome, late in the fourth century.[1] Other scholars reject this theory, and argue that the medieval Hebrew manuscripts were instead descended (by translation) from medieval Greek or Latin manuscripts, and therefore that it is extremely unlikely that any of the unique readings found in these medieval Hebrew manuscripts could be ancient.[2]

The hypotheses of Hebrew and Aramaic primacy posits that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Scholars who support these hypotheses often use these 3 mediaeval Hebrew manuscripts in discussion of Aramaic Primacy.

Papias and the Hebrew Tradition of Matthew

About whether Matthew was written in Hebrew, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) wrote this:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Shem Tov Matthew

The Shem Tov Matthew is a mediaeval manuscript containing a version of the Gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language. ...

Matt 28:19-20 "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

As far as internal, indirect evidence is concerned, three data should be noted.

1.1.1. Much of the teaching material unique to the Gospel of Matthew is only fully understandable by and of interest to a Jewish readership:

• Matt 5:17-20: Sayings relating to Jesus view of the Law in relation to the Kingdom of Heaven

• Matt 5:33-37: Jesus teaching about the taking of oaths

• Matt 6:1-4: Jesus teaching about almsgiving

• Matt 6:16-18: Jesus teaching about fasting

• Matt 22:1-14: Jesus parable speaking to Israels status upon its rejection of Jesus

• Matt 23: An extended version of Jesus evaluation of the Pharisees.

What does this suggest about the identity of the author of the Gospel of Matthew?

It suggests that he was a Jew, because a gentile would tend not to be interested in such teaching tradition.

1.1.2. The author of the Gospel of Matthew, more than the other synoptic writers, explicitly cites Old Testament messianic prophecies as having been fulfilled by Jesus. This is best illustrated in Matt 1-3:1: Matt 1:23 = Isa 7:14; Matt 2:6 = Micah 5:2; Matt 2:15 = Hosea 11:1; Matt 2:18 = Jer 31:15. What can one conclude from this about the identity of the author of the Gospel of Matthew? What kind of author would be interested in Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy? ...

More: http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm

See ny next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

External Evidence

A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): "Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church." By “Hebrews” Irenaeus probably meant Palestinian Jews. The language that Jews in Palestine would have spoken was Aramaic, although many Jews had a literary knowledge of Hebrew.

B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language."

C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written “in Hebrew letters” (H.E. 5.10.1-4): “One of these was Pantaenos, and it is said that he went to the Indians, and the tradition is that he found there among some of those there who had known Christ the Gospel of Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned” (see H.E. 3.24.5-6). According to Jerome, Pantaenos brought back a copy of this Hebrew version of Matthew to Alexandria (De vir. ill. 36).

D. Eusebius reports the view current in his time is that Matthew's gospel was based on his preaching to Palestinian Jews, whose first language no doubt would have been Aramaic. Naturally, Matthew's gospel would have been written in Aramaic. He writes, "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence" (H.E. 3.24.6).

E. Jerome (342-420) more than once asserts that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. He even claims that the original Hebrew gospel can be found in the library at Caesarea (De vir. ill. 3; see Ad Damas. 20; Ad Hedib. 4). Jerome sometimes refers to this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in order to clarify the meaning of the Greek text.

F. In describing the Jewish Christian sect known as the Nazarenes, Epiphanius (315-403) writes, "They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" (Panarion 29.9.4). It seems that he is referring to the same Hebrew version of Matthew known to Jerome.

More: http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm

[Nic Samojluk]

Here is what we find in the Catholic encyclopedia:

Quote:

Authenticity of the First Gospel

The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts.

Testimony of Tradition

According to Eusebius (Church History III.39.16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.

More:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

[Nic Samojluk]

I've seen what you say about this on other Forums by people who teach against the Trinity. It's interesting to me that they find it necessary to take legitimate verses out of the Bible in order to support their views.

Read my previous postings and notice that even the Catholic encyclopedia admits that the early Christian writers did believe that the original version of the Matthew Gospel was written in the Hebrew language/Aramaic dialect.

If those who invented the dogma of the Trinity admit this, then we need to consider the possibility that the original Greek manuscripts might have been altered to include the triune baptismal formula with the objective of bolstering the new Trinitarian doctrine.

The testimonies of Eusebius, Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius are quite compelling to me and should not be ignored.

Can you explain why we find only one text in the New Testament where the triune baptismal formula is used? All other references to baptism simply make reference the name of Jesus. Please, go back and read the list of biblical texts I listed in a previous posting.

[Nic Samojluk]

My friend, Nic, I thought you said you had no burden to convince people of this.