Who do you believe Paul or Jesus?

[§outh§tar]

@ 786

I would advise going to a Christian bookshop if you are really interested. Try as I might, I can't guarantee that what I give you will be accurate, which is why you must always question, and honestly i can only give you a paragraph as opposed to a whole book. I will try to help however

 

[Jenyar]

So basically you follow the law but you are not bound to it.

Correct. That's actually a good concise way of putting it. But what is the law? Is it only the three covenants, or the ten commandments, or the 613 mitzvot, or the hundreds more ways to express the requirements of a moral lifestyle?

God saves us. To believe that requires faith. To have genuine faith requires that you obey God's commandments. The commandments given by Moses was a teacher to show the way of faith, leading to love, which is their goal: to know God.

Only genuine faith saves. Genuine faith is not only lip-service.

 

[stretched]

Yo SouthStar

Quote SouthStar:
“As I explained earlier, Jesus came to bear witness of the Father. As the Son of the Father, it is logical that He should commune with the Father. That proves His divinity all the more, for if He chose to have His own way and the Father also to have His own way then there would be discord which is not at all agreeable with the Divinity demonstrated therein.”

Simple question here: Is Jesus God?

A simple answer will suffice.

Allcare.

 

[Leo Volont]

Yo SouthStar

Simple question here: Is Jesus God?


Allcare.

They teach virtually nothing in High School, do they? And even if they did, the West is inherently weak when it comes to Theological Studies. One learned in the Sanskrit Theological Philosophies will see a great deal of complexity in what you seem to think is simple.

The Universe is an Organization. When using Words to describe this organization, it is a matter of intellectual discretion as to how inclusive and expansive is the definition of God. You can define God as Everything (as does the Pantheist), or you can define God as just the Heavenly (as do the Chinese), or you can define God as the Highest and Central Point of the Spiritual Realm (as the most Intelligent of us do).

Of course, if God is seen as the Highest Central Spiritual Point, then Jesus Christ cannot be completely identical. The Sanskrit Philosophers tend to suppose that Christ is the Manifest Expression of God in Spirit and Life -- that is the Emanation of God. This is where it makes sense to call Christ 'the SON of God' -- the concept of SON being a metaphor for the Spiritual Truth.

You may find it interesting that The Blessed Virgin Mary is an expression of the Divine Feminine -- the Shakti Energy Principle. Christ may be the Life in All Things, but the functions of Transcendental Grace are in the Control of the Goddess Energies. In proportion as Religion cuts them off from the Feminine Aspect of Divinity, they cut themselves off from Grace. The Protestants who forever attack and insult the Blessed Virgin, this does not bode well for their success in the Spiritual Quest.

 

[Jenyar]

Allcare, I believe we've had that discussion before. Do you wish to resume it? Why do you insist on a simple answer? Do you think there should be one?

Leo, Mary is not and was never "divine" or an expression of the divine. If you want to hold that view please provide something to back it up.

 

[§outh§tar]

Yo SouthStar

Quote SouthStar:
“As I explained earlier, Jesus came to bear witness of the Father. As the Son of the Father, it is logical that He should commune with the Father. That proves His divinity all the more, for if He chose to have His own way and the Father also to have His own way then there would be discord which is not at all agreeable with the Divinity demonstrated therein.”

Simple question here: Is Jesus God?

A simple answer will suffice.

Allcare.

Yes

 

[§outh§tar]

They teach virtually nothing in High School, do they? And even if they did, the West is inherently weak when it comes to Theological Studies. One learned in the Sanskrit Theological Philosophies will see a great deal of complexity in what you seem to think is simple.

The Universe is an Organization. When using Words to describe this organization, it is a matter of intellectual discretion as to how inclusive and expansive is the definition of God. You can define God as Everything (as does the Pantheist), or you can define God as just the Heavenly (as do the Chinese), or you can define God as the Highest and Central Point of the Spiritual Realm (as the most Intelligent of us do).

Of course, if God is seen as the Highest Central Spiritual Point, then Jesus Christ cannot be completely identical. The Sanskrit Philosophers tend to suppose that Christ is the Manifest Expression of God in Spirit and Life -- that is the Emanation of God. This is where it makes sense to call Christ 'the SON of God' -- the concept of SON being a metaphor for the Spiritual Truth.

You may find it interesting that The Blessed Virgin Mary is an expression of the Divine Feminine -- the Shakti Energy Principle. Christ may be the Life in All Things, but the functions of Transcendental Grace are in the Control of the Goddess Energies. In proportion as Religion cuts them off from the Feminine Aspect of Divinity, they cut themselves off from Grace. The Protestants who forever attack and insult the Blessed Virgin, this does not bode well for their success in the Spiritual Quest.

That is baseless and futile! You can NOT know God if He has not revealed Himself to you. You are ignorantly claiming that the finite can somehow embrace the knowledge of the infinite!

 

[stretched]

Yo Leo Volont and SouthStar,

“Is Jesus God?”

The reason I asked this question is simply that, if Jesus is God, and presupposing that the Christian God is omniscient and singular, SouthStars statement below indicates a duality:

Quote SouthStar:
“That proves His divinity all the more, for if He chose to have His own way and the Father also to have His own way then there would be discord which is not at all agreeable with the Divinity demonstrated therein.”

So, essentially a simple answer like SouthStar responded: “Yes”, points to a singularity. Note the confusion.

And here:
Quote SouthStar: “As the Son of the Father, it is logical that He should commune with the Father. That proves His divinity all the more”

The above statement points once again to a duality. So what is it to be?

Yo Jenyar,

The reason I harp on about the “Is Jesus God?” question, is that I am not satisfied with any explanation thus far in regard to understanding how an omnipotent God in the form of Jesus could possibly suffer physically and therefore redeem the sins of mankind. The only way out of this dilemma is the statement: “God is not omnipotent”

Yo Leo,

Quote Leo:
“Of course, if God is seen as the Highest Central Spiritual Point, then Jesus Christ cannot be completely identical. The Sanskrit Philosophers tend to suppose that Christ is the Manifest Expression of God in Spirit and Life -- that is the Emanation of God. This is where it makes sense to call Christ 'the SON of God' -- the concept of SON being a metaphor for the Spiritual Truth.”

I enjoy this line of thinking Leo, but this will certainly not be acceptable to Christian thinking, as the “spiritual truth” would not need to bleed on a cross.

Quote SouthStar:
“That is baseless and futile! You can NOT know God if He has not revealed Himself to you. You are ignorantly claiming that the finite can somehow embrace the knowledge of the infinite!”

With all due respect dude, that is a very arrogant statement. You are in fact claiming that your “finite” knowledge is more “infinite” than Leos`. Unfortunately, a response typical of the Christian intolerant worldview. What I mean is, on what authority do you assume Leo has not had a God revelation that shapes his thinking?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

So, essentially a simple answer like SouthStar responded: “Yes”, points to a singularity. Note the confusion.
...
The above statement points once again to a duality. So what is it to be?

Yo Jenyar,

The reason I harp on about the “Is Jesus God?” question, is that I am not satisfied with any explanation thus far in regard to understanding how an omnipotent God in the form of Jesus could possibly suffer physically and therefore redeem the sins of mankind. The only way out of this dilemma is the statement: “God is not omnipotent”

Listen, the problem you're having has to do with you not being able to comprehend a singularity (One God) having two or more presences. Since the Holy Spirit is generally only regarded as spirit, it's sometimes easier to overlook it. But guess what?

...and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. - Luke 3:22.​

Compare that with the verse I gave you earlier (I include the previous verse here because its relevant to that context as well as ours):

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ...​

While I don't agree with Leo's neo-mystic interpretation, what he said is still useful. "Christ is the Manifest Expression of God in Spirit and Life". In Spirit and Life. The one true God (i.e. none other) revealed as a man, but existing not only as a visible figure, not only as the unseen Spirit, not only as the otherwise unknowable Father.

You see, it's we who sit with the dualistic, even trinitarian "problem". We have all these realities of God to contend with, but we are limited by our very being only one of them. We can't imagine two or three things existing simulaneously and independently as a coherent whole, without trying to visualize them next to each other - and describing it with words that are fit only for the reality we can see and interact with on our terms. Without God himself intervening in all these areas, we would forever have wandered between "no god" and "everything is god".

Stretched, let's try a little exercise. I don't know how well it will work, but I think you'll understand it afterwards. Try saying or describing something that has to do with anything outside your physical reach, from the metaphysical realm. Let's say you want to tell me about physics, cosmology, or geology. Provide any sentence that describes an object or structure from these areas.

 

[Tiassa]

Re: Face of God

So ... who or what did Abraham and Sarah speak with in Genesis 18?

And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, "My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I fetch a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on -- since you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as you have said" . . . .

. . . . The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him? No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him." Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor'rah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know." So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD. Then Abraham drew near, and said, "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked?"

(Gen. 18.1-5, 17-23; RSV)

____________________

• The Bible, Revised Standard Version - see http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

I have no problem with a god expressed in various facets. I have a problem with the logic in these different facets all having there own varying potential opinions as SouthStar indicated. Moreover the concept of the "Trinity" itself is debatable.

The Evolution of the Trinity

Contrary to what most Christians believe, the Christian concept of the triune godhead did not come "pre-packaged" in the teachings of Jesus, Paul or the Bible. The New Testament contained a few vague, triadic, formulas such as that found in II Corinthians 13:13 which are often understood, anachronistically, as Trinitarian. The formulation is more properly understood as speaking of different entities that are closely related to one another. A good example would be the English phrase "fighting for king and country". The terms "king" and "country" are not synonymous but are concepts closely related to patriotism; with the former normally being viewed as the visible symbol of the latter.

As the Macmillan Compendium: World Religions explains:
[E]xegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father is the source of all that is (Pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ. "Father" is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God. Early liturgical and creedal formulas speak of God as "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"; praise is to be rendered to God through Christ (see opening greetings in Paul and deutero-Paul). There are other binatarian texts (e.g. Rom 4:24, 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Tm. 2:5-6, 6:13; 2 Tm. 4:1) and a few triadic texts (the strongest are 2 Cor. 13:13 and Mt. 28:19; others are 1 Cor 6:11, 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 1 Thes. 5:18-19; Gal. 3:11-14) Christ is sent by God and the spirit is sent by Christ so that all may be returned to God. [1]
The final Trinitarian formulation was the result of theological battles that were fought during the first four centuries of the Christian era.

(from: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/god.html)


Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ...

Religious and human tradition is so intertwined as to be inseparable.

Quote Jenyar:
“You see, it's we who sit with the dualistic, even trinitarian "problem". We have all these realities of God to contend with, but we are limited by our very being only one of them. We can't imagine two or three things existing simulaneously and independently as a coherent whole, without trying to visualize them next to each other - and describing it with words that are fit only for the reality we can see and interact with on our terms. Without God himself intervening in all these areas, we would forever have wandered between "no god" and "everything is god"

The thing is why is there a need for a holy trinity in the first place. The concept of the trinity exists only to explain the doctrines of Christianity. The Trinity appears to be apologetics for Biblical paradoxes.

Quote Jenyar:
“Stretched, let's try a little exercise. I don't know how well it will work, but I think you'll understand it afterwards. Try saying or describing something that has to do with anything outside your physical reach, from the metaphysical realm. Let's say you want to tell me about physics, cosmology, or geology. Provide any sentence that describes an object or structure from these areas.”
Lets see if this is what you have in mind.

My statement: “We humans are made up of countless tiny particles”

Or: “The moon shines at night due to reflected light”

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

So ... who or what did Abraham and Sarah speak with in Genesis 18?

The trinity who was God? It's interesting to note that Abraham was circumcized into God's covenant just three days earlier. The author clearly recognizes the three persons as "the Lord", but we must read the story from Abraham's perspective, we must discover what the author already knows through Abraham's eyes.

The person that remained to speak with Abraham never arrived in Sodom - only two angels are mentioned in Gen.19, yet...

18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! Your[3] servant has found favor in your[4] eyes, and you[5] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life.​

[3][4] and [5] are singular! But a few verses later we read:

19 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the LORD out of the heavens.​

Make of that what you will.

Contrary to what most Christians believe, the Christian concept of the triune godhead did not come "pre-packaged" in the teachings of Jesus, Paul or the Bible. The New Testament contained a few vague, triadic, formulas such as that found in II Corinthians 13:13 which are often understood, anachronistically, as Trinitarian. The formulation is more properly understood as speaking of different entities that are closely related to one another. A good example would be the English phrase "fighting for king and country". The terms "king" and "country" are not synonymous but are concepts closely related to patriotism; with the former normally being viewed as the visible symbol of the latter.

As the Macmillan Compendium: World Religions explains:
[E]xegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. ...

It's not in there explicitly, it's there implicitly. I also find the word "anachronistically" rather telling in the first paragraph. What isn't anachronistic about the fulfilment of prophesies? Does that discount them?

What does the author make of Jesus' words in John 8:20?:

"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." or John 8:56?: "Your father rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad. Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?". I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
​

Who did Abraham see at Mamre? What about John 14:10?:

Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.​

Jesus also says that the Spirit comes from the Father (Matt.10:20). There is no sign of the serialization that MacMillan suggests. Not to mention Matthew 11:27:

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."​

The thing is why is there a need for a holy trinity in the first place. The concept of the trinity exists only to explain the doctrines of Christianity. The Trinity appears to be apologetics for Biblical paradoxes.

It is neccesary to explain the work of God - for no other reason. Paradoxes aren't sins, you know.

My statement: “We humans are made up of countless tiny particles”
Or: “The moon shines at night due to reflected light”

In the first sentence, look at the words 'made up', 'countless' and 'particles - if I took "We humans" away, would you still picture a human? Aren't those words metaphors - 'made up' conjures up an image of someone creating something; 'countless' cannot literrally mean infinite - it means a human can't count them; 'particles' is really just a word like trinity, it denotes the sub-atomic, atomic and cellular. What are the measurements of 'tiny'? Does that mean you were not talking about a human, or that I can't know what you're talking about, or that your sentence was too unscientific to have any meaning?

And the second one means "the moon reflects light at night", yet you put it in an interesting way. If you look at the clause "the moon shines", it generates an image of the moon emanating light, even when you add "due to reflected light" it doesn't sound important enought to change the first impression in your mind. You don't suddenly imagine a dark moon with just light bouncing off it. The moon still shines as if it could.

What I'm trying to say is that the image which forms in our mind does not have to accurately represent reality to nontheless refer to a veritable reality. We use metaphors like that every day: 'I see what you mean', 'I didn't catch that sound'. We anthromorphize because we don't have a choice. We hold on to the human qualities because they make up our understanding, but we can still accurately use them to refer to realities that exist outside that understanding. A metaphor is a mystification and a generalization, but it explains what it needs to. That's what the "Trinity" is - a word we use to explain a reality which we can't touch. That doesn't make it absurd anymore than a shining moon is "absurd".

 

[§outh§tar]

Yo Leo Volont and SouthStar,

“Is Jesus God?”

The reason I asked this question is simply that, if Jesus is God, and presupposing that the Christian God is omniscient and singular, SouthStars statement below indicates a duality:

Quote SouthStar:
“That proves His divinity all the more, for if He chose to have His own way and the Father also to have His own way then there would be discord which is not at all agreeable with the Divinity demonstrated therein.”

So, essentially a simple answer like SouthStar responded: “Yes”, points to a singularity. Note the confusion.

And here:
Quote SouthStar: “As the Son of the Father, it is logical that He should commune with the Father. That proves His divinity all the more”

The above statement points once again to a duality. So what is it to be?

Well in that case you must remind yourself that you asked me the question because you wanted to hear conflicting answers.

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/jesusSpiritNatureQuestion.htm
http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/godheadTrinity.htm

Quote SouthStar:
“That is baseless and futile! You can NOT know God if He has not revealed Himself to you. You are ignorantly claiming that the finite can somehow embrace the knowledge of the infinite!”

With all due respect dude, that is a very arrogant statement. You are in fact claiming that your “finite” knowledge is more “infinite” than Leos`. Unfortunately, a response typical of the Christian intolerant worldview. What I mean is, on what authority do you assume Leo has not had a God revelation that shapes his thinking?

Allcare.

I can only smile at that statement.

It is obvious to ANYONE who reads it that I meant WE are ALL finite compared to an INFINITE God. Therefore the very action of CLAIMING we know about this God ASIDE from His revelation IS in fact, ARROGANCE.

IF Leo DID have a "God revelation", it would NOT contradict with His revelation to man, the Bible. That would be like saying God's revelation contradicts with God's revelation.

We are ALL ignorant.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Did Moses see God, or a burning bush caused by God?

*************
M*W: Or was that burning bush caused by a spark from the desert heat? And what about all those fires in California? Has anyone seen God in them?​

 

[Medicine*Woman]

As far as Paul it is true that he was a pharasee.

*************
M*W: But he also claimed to be a Saducee -- whenever it was convenient.
*************

That is why it is so foolish to think he was against marriage. He could not have been a pharisee if he was not married.

*************
M*W: My point, exactly. One day Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. The next day he claimed to be a Saducee. He wasn't married because he allegedly was gay and having an affair with Timothy. In any event, he was a misogynist.
*************

According to Jewish law a person could not even preach unless he was 30 years old and married.

*************
M*W: As is the case with Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
*************
(

This one wil spin your hat.) Jesus obeyed the law. He even waited until he was 30 to start his teaching.

*************
M*W: ...and he was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children. Apparently, the sexual intercourse between these two marital partners was pretty damn good.

 

[Leo Volont]

*************
M*W: ...and he was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children. Apparently, the sexual intercourse between these two marital partners was pretty damn good.

No History, and no Revelation say that Christ and Mary Magdalan had a 'thing'.

The Jews in the Holy Land and then in Europe decided to cause dissention and planted the idea that Jesus was a horny Playboy in order to weaken the Church. Also, it was a ploy that German Barons used to attack the influence of Priests and Bishops in districts that were in dispute -- the Barons would claim to be the descendents of Jesus (the sons of Jesus and Mary Magdalan) in order to divide the loyalties of the common people who then would not know what to believe.

But those were ignorant peasants. What is your excuse for believing such crap?

 

[Leo Volont]

*************
M*W: Or was that burning bush caused by a spark from the desert heat? And what about all those fires in California? Has anyone seen God in them?​

The Burning Tree did not consume itself.

I myself once saw the Angel of God, and it was no mere bush. It was as large as an Oak Tree and it did appear to be aflame -- but the Flames were of every conceivable color, and shown with steadiness. In modern terms we would call it an Aura. But the unsophisticated Hebrews were at a loss for words and used the only term they knew that could express the idea of Projecting Luminosity -- Fire.​

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"That's what the "Trinity" is - a word we use to explain a reality which we can't touch. That doesn't make it absurd anymore than a shining moon is "absurd"."

I am 100% with you here. I think maybe what I am trying to ascertain is when Jesus talks about his Father, who is he referring to? The Father in the Trinity, or God? So is the Father the same being as God? If Jesus is god, is he then talking to himself? Is this why the concept of Trinity was canonised? To explain the paradox? If Jesus were not God, but a mere mortal prophet as the Jews and Islam believe, would the concept of Trinity exist in Christian doctrine? When in Christian history was Jesus deified? Paradoxes are not sin, but they question the integrity of doctrine.

SouthStar:

Quote SouthStar:
"I can only smile at that statement.

It is obvious to ANYONE who reads it that I meant WE are ALL finite compared to an INFINITE God. Therefore the very action of CLAIMING we know about this God ASIDE from His revelation IS in fact, ARROGANCE.

IF Leo DID have a "God revelation", it would NOT contradict with His revelation to man, the Bible. That would be like saying God's revelation contradicts with God's revelation.

We are ALL ignorant."

Yeah, only you can know in your heart what your level of arrogance is. You seemingly claim a lot by your statements. Apologies if I am forward. Having said that, what is your understanding of the word "reveal" or “revelation”? The one certain thing in this life is that we are all overwhelmingly ignorant.

Quote SouthStar:
“That proves His divinity all the more, for if He chose to have His own way and the Father also to have His own way then there would be discord”

Please explain to me who we are talking about here? Who is He, and who is the Father? And tel me once again, is Jesus God? Are they one and the same?

Allcare.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar:

Quote SouthStar:
"I can only smile at that statement.

It is obvious to ANYONE who reads it that I meant WE are ALL finite compared to an INFINITE God. Therefore the very action of CLAIMING we know about this God ASIDE from His revelation IS in fact, ARROGANCE.

IF Leo DID have a "God revelation", it would NOT contradict with His revelation to man, the Bible. That would be like saying God's revelation contradicts with God's revelation.

We are ALL ignorant."

Yeah, only you can know in your heart what your level of arrogance is. You seemingly claim a lot by your statements. Apologies if I am forward. Having said that, what is your understanding of the word "reveal" or “revelation”? The one certain thing in this life is that we are all overwhelmingly ignorant.

Well if I "seemingly claim a lot" then why are you calling me arrogant? 'Tis no matter of you being forward, I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing as you have already considered the plank in your own eye. I was certainly not aware that I was supposed to be "seemingly" unsure and doubtful of my statements, as opposed to being "seemingly" confident.

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/inspirationQuestion.htm

Quote SouthStar:
“That proves His divinity all the more, for if He chose to have His own way and the Father also to have His own way then there would be discord”

Please explain to me who we are talking about here? Who is He, and who is the Father? And tel me once again, is Jesus God? Are they one and the same?

Allcare.

I recommend you go back to my previous post and use the links I provided to give you information. I thought you had already taken the courtesy to at least read them.

 

[TheVisitor]

There are no contridictions between Paul and Jesus,.....only a lack in your understanding of the scrpitures caused be centuries of false teaching.

Lets take the Trinity for example....
Jesus said baptise in the name (singular - get that now) of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
Peter said baptise in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ...
Why is there no contridiction.... ?
Because theres no such thing as a trinity, or a trinity of Gods.

Yes, if there were three Gods, you might very well baptize for a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Ghost. But the REVELATION GIVEN TO JOHN was that there is ONE GOD and His Name is LORD JESUS CHRIST, and you baptize for ONE God and only one. That is why Peter baptized the way he did at Pentecost. He had to be true to the revelation which was, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that SAME JESUS, Whom ye have crucified, BOTH LORD AND CHRIST." There He is, "The LORD JESUS CHRIST."

If anyone has any false ideas that history can prove water baptism in any other way than in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would advise you to read the histories and find out for yourself. The following is a true record of a Baptism which took place in Rome A.D. 100 and was reproduced in TIME Magazine December 5, 1955. "The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. `Credis?' he asked. `Credo,' responded Publius. `I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.' Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear--`I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus'--as the cold water closed over him."

Right up until the truth was lost (and did not return until this last age--this is from Nicaea till the turn of this century) they baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But it has come back. Satan can't keep the revelation down when the Spirit wants to give it.

If Jesus is `BOTH' Lord and Christ, then He (Jesus) is, and cannot be else but "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in ONE Person manifested in the flesh. It is NOT "God in three persons, blessed trinity," but ONE GOD, ONE PERSON with three major titles, with three offices manifesting those titles. Hear it once more. This same Jesus is "BOTH Lord and Christ." Lord (Father) and Christ (Holy Spirit) are Jesus, for He (Jesus) is BOTH of them (Lord and Christ).
Lord is NOT another one; Christ is NOT another one. This Jesus is the Lord Jesus Christ--ONE GOD.

Philip one day said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father and it will suffice us." Jesus said unto him, "Have I been so long with you and you don't know Me? He that has seen Me has seen the Father, so why do you say, Show us the Father? I and My Father are One."

John had the revelation, and JESUS was the Revelation, and He produced Himself right here in the Scripture--"I AM He That Was, Which Is and Shall Come, the Almighty.