Another shout of praise goes up to Jehovah!

Originally posted by wotsup: ↑

@whereu

"Did Peter of all people, as well as other accounts in the Bible with the Same message, effectively give Jesus's message the finger
"I doubt it.
I don't think Peter necessarily contradicts Matthew but has a different focus unless you want to support the idea that the Bible is littered with contradictions."

Doesn't contradict Matt you say, Baptism is Baptism, there's not a different focus there.
Following is 6 of what I expect is more = Houston, Matt has a Serious problem, or Peter and Paul didn't have a clue as the what they were saying, hmmm.

Acts 10:48 - And he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Jesus). Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
2:38 - Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
8:16 - For the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
19:5 - On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

1 Cor 1:13 - Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? …
Gal 3:27 - For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Matt, looks like a Duck, quacks and walks like one it is -> CC tampering with Matt.
-------------
"It seems that you are now admitting that the Bibles come from the CC.
Given that you are so anti-CC, why do you follow the Bible?"

No one is or has denied that the CC's gathered the info that was available, and selected which ones to form the bible.
They are not the writers.
------------
"We know about your views of what you say happened around the 200s.
Which expert scholars said this? Works of men that you deride?
Is the Bible not a "work in progress"?"

200's, make that more like the 100's, that's when the untruths began to grow legs.
Experts you say -> Not needed, ppm copy/pasted history records showing what it looks like, what they began to teach and that ONLY went back to around the 100's.
Then one only needs to LOOK at the Bible and compare that with the key core basics of who and what the Father and Son are, and you clearly see the corruption.
NO said expert scholars needed for this simple task, to see the clear truth.

Bible a work in progress, absolutely NOT, it does not change, only the creation of men, with it like -> The Father being the Only true God in John 17:3, is somehow magically -> Father, Son and Holy Spirit, according to ppm and others.
--------------
"Isn't the fact that Matthew makes sense with an understanding of the Trinity, saying that the Bible supports the Trinity? I think it is."

It makes absolutely NO sense, as the Father IS the Holy Spirit, because the Bible clearly show this, as well as it or him, Fathering Jesus and we know he certainly doesn't have two sons.

Neither does this Matt, as corrupt as it is, say these three make up one God, that is no more than peoples delusions from 2 Thes 2:11, coming into play.
So, you're trying to suggest, that for 4,000 odd years, that God kept it a secret, from Abraham, Moses and Co that he was 3 persons, surely you're not that Crazy in swallowing that Nonsense?
They would have been deemed as worshiping another God, if he was 3 persons
God would also be deemed as a liar, by omissions, hmmm

Expand

Thank you @wotsup for demonstrating that we all read and interpret what we read and in the case of scripture find further interpretations of scripture to support our interpretations.
Your post has many examples of this.
An example is "They would have been deemed as worshiping another God, if he was 3 persons".
That's how you see it. I see it as a lack of understanding of the Trinity doctrine.