Posted on 02/05/2007 10:35:59 AM PST by MichaelTheeArchAngel
Historical proofs as to the way the trinitarian doctrine effected the pure doctrine of the disciples. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism.
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015: "The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture." "The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61.Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states: "It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19. "Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation: In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.
Tom Harpur: Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal addition."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723: Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament: By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church: By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1: The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5: The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
A History of The Christian Church: 1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts. "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
Nice try, but if you're going to eliminate the concept of the Trinity from scripture, you're going to be left with an awful lot of hopeless contradictions.
Deum
Deum-----God
nemo-----noone
vidit---has seen
umquam----ever
unigenitus---onlybegotten
Filius----Son
qui-----who
est-----is
in---in
sinu----the bosom (literally, the curve)
Patris----[of the] Father
ipse-----himself
enarravit----has described.
IOW, "God, whom no-one has ever seen, the Son -- who is in the bosom of the Father -- himself has revealed."
King James dodged the awkwark translation of this by using the Son and the Father as names for God; note, however, that in the Latin (which also presumes that Son and Father, being capitalized, refer to God), "God" remains the subject of the sentence. This less clearly states that the Son is God to anyone who didn't accept that proposition in the first place. But keep in mind that it is merely a translation of the Greek, which inserted "theos" to make clear that the son is THE Son, namely, God.
If you describe Jesus you'll say that he is the only begotten son of God, is a man, was visible, was of limited knowledge, that all things were committed to Him by the Father, was tempted in all ways, was flesh and blood, died for sinners,came to teach who He was and what He was about, knowing that He would be killed, was raisedraised himself from the dead and sits at is the right hand of God, because He is God Himself.
There I fixed it. "God the Son (non Biblical term) and God the Holy Ghost (another non Biblical term) "
You were given Isaiah 63.
" these three are supposed to be co equal and co eternal. "
Coequal is a meaningless term. They all identify God. Jesus was begotten, before all worlds when God decided to create.
"And these three are one being who is three beings in one person and one person who has three beings.....
Yes, just like man is. That's already been pointed out.
God is His own mediator, and His own right hand man. That's clear in the Bible, as I pointed out.
>> First, I can't find YHWH used in the new testament even though it is common in the OT. <<
Right. That's what I'm trying to explain: the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greeks used "Lord" to represent YHWH. Many English bibles follow this tradition, simply capitalizing LORD, to distinguish from the common British title, "lord." But when we proclaim that Jesus is LORD, we are proclaiming that Jesus is God.
>> I doubt that Marx or Stalin did that. <<
They certainly did not proclaim that Jesus was God, or that he rose from the dead. They did, however, acknowledge that Jesus existed. Again, my point is that confessing Jesus LORD means more than acknowledging his existence; it means proclaiming he is God. Notice that Paul says we must confess Jesus Lord AND that he rose from the dead. That means that we have to confess Jesus Lord.
>> Was/is Jesus a man? Of course, the Bible says so repeatedly. But was he "only" a man or 'merely' a man? No! <<
This is why it is baffling that you keep citing references to Jesus being a man as if it were refutation of Jesus being God; Jesus is both God and man.
>> He took part but did not partake. He shared the flesh but not the blood. The flesh was of Mary but the blood from his Father. <<
"Took part" is nothing more than a back-formation of "partake." Also, an unborn baby does not have its own blood. Its blood is the mother's, passing through the umbilical cord. Jesus's blood was Mary's.
Umm ... no. That's just wrong. An unborn baby has his own blood, with his own blood type, which doesn't change after he is born. The umbilical cord and placenta are also his; the 'interface' is in the lining of his mother's uterus. Oxygen, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and waste pass through but the blood does not. Unless there's a serious problem.
Of course, half the DNA that defines blood type, tissue type, etc. comes from his mother.
Jehovah's Witnesses or the Way International? I am guessing the later.
All of the bible proofs of a trinity have been falsified.Let me give just one, of many proofs; In Genisis 1 our bibles read "let us make man in our image"... The words "Let us" are not in actual scripture, but have been added. Look in the NIV exaustive concordence under "Let us". And the list go's on and on and on. All of the proofs,and again I say "ALL" have been added to the bible by the Catholic church. They CAN ONIZED the bible for their DOG MA.
God is invisible
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
God is spirit
Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. God cannot be tempted
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
God is not a man
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
God is not the son of man
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
God is His own mediator, and His own right hand man. That's clear in the Bible, as I pointed out.
Sorry, the Bible simply says you're wrong on that.
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
No. This is simply an empty claim. You haven't addressed anyhting I said.
"In Genisis 1 our bibles read "let us make man in our image"... The words "Let us" are not in actual scripture, but have been added."
Wrong.
Gen 1:26,
כו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם
בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ
בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם,
וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ,
וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.
And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
All of the proofs,and again I say "ALL" have been added to the bible by the Catholic church. They CAN ONIZED the bible for their DOG MA.
I supposed the Jews conspired with the Church to accomplish this. I wonder how much the Church paid, and how the Church influenced Isaiah? Creating and hiding those old manuscripts was a real work of art!
Partakers- koinonia- to share fully, to partner
Took part - metecho- to share
Unborn babies do not share their mother's blood supply. They share but don't share fully.
Had Jesus' blood been Mary's then he would not have had the sinless nature.
>> Umm ... no. That's just wrong. An unborn baby has his own blood, with his own blood type, which doesn't change after he is born. The umbilical cord and placenta are also his; the 'interface' is in the lining of his mother's uterus. Oxygen, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and waste pass through but the blood does not. Unless there's a serious problem <<
No, you're wrong. Wikipedia: "Both mother and fetus share a common blood supply. In particular, the fetus's blood supply is delivered via the umbilical vein from the placenta, which is anchored to the wall of the mother's uterus."
>> Had Jesus' blood been Mary's then he would not have had the sinless nature. <<
Unless Mary was also sinless. This is a large part of why ancient Christians deduced Mary must be sinless, even though the bible did not explicitly state that fact. (The tension between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church with regards to the Immaculate Conception has more to do with the concept of original sin; the Eastern Churches believe Mary did not sin.)
Let us make = `asah (Strong's)
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass
b) (Niphal)
1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used
c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze
I don't see anything that justifies "let us make" as a plural.
It isn't uncommon for the KJV translators to insert their theology from time to time. You can also see it in the way italicized words are used and translated.
The placental membrane separates the two circulatory systems.
Wikepedia....sheesh! LOL
Let the dead bury the dead. The living have work to do. I suspect the amount of demonic delusion that goes into the denial of the central fact of the universe (The Trinity) makes those who succumb to that denial immune to reason.
Unitarianism is still wrong, of course ...
>> God is not Man... God is not the Son of Man <<
God is spirit, and he is invisible. That is the deliberate paradox of Colossians, that Christ is the image of that which is invisible.
The rest of what you wrote is much simpler:
Numbers was written before the incarnation; God had not become Man. In Titus, a word normally derived from figurative connotations (mediator), is made literal: God/Man is the mediator between God and Man. As for the temptation of Jesus, it was his human nature which was tempted, not his divine nature. That's a difficult understanding to come to, which is why the monophysite heresy needed addressing, but the monophysites were refuted from the bible.
Incidentally, "mystery" does not mean "things Catholics believe, even though they make no sense." The common meaning of "mystery" used today (that which is unknown) is of very recent origin. Rather, it refers to that which can understand more fully by further reflection. IOW, the trinity isn't a mystery because it's nonsensical, but because the more one reflects on the nature of the trinity, the deeper one understands the truth.
I suspect that submitting wikepedia as a source in a serious research paper will get you laughed at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.