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.
It's a moot point to argue anyway as God is obviously in heaven, always was, Jesus is in heaven and the HS comes down from heaven. The fact that they bear witness is the important part-- earth or heaven makes no difference because God is everywhere.
While the Johannine Comma may be questionable, Matthew 28:19 is not questionable.
Are you saying that two of the most important verses used to support the trinitarian doctrine have been proven to be falsified????
I'm shocked, I tell you, just shocked! /sarcasm
Maybe Dan Rathers helped write the Bible?
Well, I got out my books on Hebrew to check the reference given me, because I was told I was in error, and this is what I found in regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym: making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." The words "Let us" were not there. Thanks for wasting my time. Here are some additional verses from the N.I.V. bible to think about.
#1. Matthew 26:64. "Yes, it is as you say,"
#2. Mark 14:62. "I am, said Jesus." Did Jesus say yes or I am.
#3. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Or did Jesus say; Before Abraham was born, I lived.
#4. Micah 5:2. "Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
#1. Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," It is recorded in history that the oldest script said, "In my name."
#2. Acts 4:12. "There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
#3. Acts 10:48. "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
#4. Acts 19:5. "They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
#5. Romans 6:3. "All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus ."
N.I.V. 1 John 5:7-8. "7. For there are three that testify: 8. The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
Vulgate 1 John 5:7."For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
Textual Commentary on Revelation 1:11.
K.J.V. Revelation 1:10-11. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,) What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
The bracketed, emboldened portion of the above KJV text was not in the original text of verse 11, as explained below. The NRSV and TEV versions of this verse accurately reflect in English what was written in the original Greek text of that verse.
NRSV 1:10-11. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
TEV 1:10-11. On the Lord's day the Spirit took control of me, and I heard a loud voice, that sounded like a trumpet, speaking behind me. 11 It said, "Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."
Commentary
Modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:
Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,)
The wording at the beginning of the King James Version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned as a footnote in any modern translation. Now the voice of coarse is the Son of Man; and he is the (first and last) god to be born into this world; however he is not the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End.
K.J.V. 1:12-13. 12. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Now all of the different bibles tell us that God the Father is a Spirit, and that He is Holy. Therefore one of His many name titles is Holy Spirit.
I hope you're not tring to debate me on these items since, as I stated before, I'm supporting your thesis.
My post was intended for whoever had me research the Hebrew text, saying that the words (Let us) is there. I looked in the Hebrew text he linked me to, and they are not in that Hebrew text. The words (Let us) are not there.
Throughout The Old Testament God refers to himself....and is referred to, as one. John 1:1 reveals that Our Saviour was with God in the beginning. As what? His word! His spokesman!
[Proverbs 30:4] Solomon knew that God had a Son...."Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!"
[Colossians 1:15-16] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. [John 6:62] What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! and [John 3:13] No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man.
To dispute the fact that Our Saviour was not God incarnate is to call scripture false. Even John The Baptist testifies that our Saviour (who was 6 months younger) was God incarnate [John 1:15] John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me."
So.....if God and his Son both pre existed the world, how come they are not two separate persons? [John 10:30] "I and the Father are one." [Philipians 2:5-7] For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made.
As previously stated in earlier posts "Elohim" is, when used in the Hebrew to describe the one true god....a singular noun. It can be used to describe other gods in the plural but generally is used in the singular. Baalberith/Judges 8:33; Chemosh/Judges 11:24; Dagon/Judges 16:23; Ashteroth/I Kings 11:5; Balzebub/II Kings 1:2-3; Nisroch/II Kings 19:37 and the golden calf/Exodus 32:1-31 are all called Elohim in the singular! If anyone were to insinuate that these gods were trinities...or more than one it could easily be disproved. So, why does mainstream Christianity insist that the one true God of scriptures, Elohim, be referred to in the plural?
Jacob wrestled with Elohim [Genesis 32:24-24]....one opponent, not three! Moses is called Elohim [Exodus 7:1]. Was Moses a trinity? Elohim is called Father in the singular [Malachi 2:10].
Only two scriptures come close to supporting a trinitarian view, [1 John 5:7] which everyone by now should know is spurious and [Matthew 28:19].
Does Matthew prove a trinity? No! This is the translation from the Hebrew text, "Shem Tov". Yashua drew near and said, "All power[All Mighty] is given to me in Heaven and Earth. Go you and teach them to carry out all things I have commanded you forever." This translation agrees with that of Eusebius Histories, Book III, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2 Eusebius also tells us in Book III, Chapter 39, Paragraph 16 that according to Papias the Book of Matthew was written in the Hebrew, not the Greek. This is also confirmed by Iraeneus in his "Against Heresies" Book III, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1. And as Iraeneus explains in Paragraph 2, there is one God and one son of God.....the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of God.
Not surprisingly, the original Hebrew of Matthew, according to "Shem Tov" does not indicate a Trinitarian viewpoint....as also would the Torah.... used by the early Jewish believers and taught by the Apostles.
Unfortunately, the Greek manuscripts that we have... that have been used to translate Matthew....are not originals. This is another quote from Eusebius regarding the E.C.F., Origen: "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned that by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language."
So, the only two scriptural references to the Trinity doctrine are in doubt! One proves to be spurious and the other, a translation from a different language....and not at all in agreement with the Torah.....of which Our Saviour reminded us: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them!"
To support the idea of a Trinitarian God head you have to use terms not found in the Bible, rely on false scripture based upon twisted interpretations that contradict extremely clear scriptures and create a convoluted theory that no one really understands, forcing it's adherents to declare it a mystery.
So are you saying that Jesus and the Father are the same person or are you espousing the binitarian view?
I am saying that the God Head is not a Trinity. I am also saying that the Apostle Paul mentions the Father and Our Saviour in every single introduction of every epistle he wrote. He never once mentions the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit were a co equal member of the God Head Paul would have been certain to know this. If so, why does he not mention it.....why do the others not mention it?
Likewise Peter never mentions the Holy Spirit in his two introductions. If this were a defining doctrine of the Apostolic church....wouldn't you consider this odd?
As Our Saviour said, "I and the Father are one." [John 10:30]
one what??? Where does it say there the they are "one person". Note that it does not read "I and the Father AM one". If he was the Father, why didn't he say so with the simple words: "I am the Father" --- but he didn't because he wasn't and isn't.
This same thing is stated by Paul in I Corinthians 3:6-8:
"I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase... Now he that planted and he that watereth are one".
Is Paul saying that he and Apollos are the same person? Certainly not. It means that they are united in agreement but with different ministries. They complement one another rather than conflict or compete with each other.
And then Jesus prays for his apostles "that they may be one even as we are one". Well, hello. Did John become Peter who became James .... Weren't they all different people with different identities and different ministries and different callings and different destinies??? But they became ONE just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were ONE --- united in agreement and purpose regarding the Gospel but with separate identities, separate names, separate ministries.
Let's read the context. It is during Hanukkah and Jesus is at the temple and the Jews are congregating around him....hoping he'll slip up. [John 10:22-24]
He tells them in so many words he indeed is the Son of God and they attempt to stone him. [John 10:25-31]
They are attempting this because He claims to be God. Jesus answers that indeed it is written that "Ye are Gods"[Psalm 82:6] and scripture cannot be broken. He asks why they accuse him of blasphemy because he claims to be God's Son. [John 10:32-37]
If Jesus was not God incarnate then his sacrifice would have been for naught [Psalm 49:5-9]....but He was [John 1:1] ....And the Word was God.
One what? One God.
[John 10:38] "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Right --- He said that He was the SON of God. Did these Jews ever say: "What do you mean by the word 'Son' of God? God doesn't have a Son. There is only one person up there". No --- They never question him in regard to there being a Father and a Son.
As a matter of fact, even the parables that Jesus told indicate that the Jewish leaders understood that the Father and the Son were two separate persons. They had no problem with the concept. They just didn't like this Son that they had in front of them. He wasn't who they expected.
Jesus and the Father were ONE just like the apostles were ONE and Paul and Apollos were ONE. Just as the apostles were more than one person and Paul and Apollos were more than one person, so Jesus and his Father.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
A couple questions:
How many time is the word for word (logos) translated directly as "Jesus"?
How many times is it correctly translated communicate?
What is the precise meaning for the word "with" (pros)?
(Pros means something different than para or meta)
How was the logos 'with' God in the beginning?
LOL.....Good one....understatement of the year!
In Deut.6:4, the Hebrew word for 'one' is echad-a compound unity, not a singular one.
there ya go.
Some make the argument that because echad is used in passages such as Gen. 1:5 (evening and morning were "day one [echad]", or "first day"), Gen. 2:24 (a husband and wife shall be "one" flesh) and Ezek. 37:17 (two sticks are to become "one" stick), echad is therefore meant to be understood as some kind of a compound unity. To begin with, such examples make up but a very small minority of the uses of echad, the vast majority being of the variety listed above. It is improper exegesis to define a word on the basis of a small percentage of its usage. But even this extreme minority of usage does not mean that echad actually has a different meaning than a simply one in these passages. In Gen. 1:5, "day" is the word that has "parts" to it (i.e., "evening" and "morning" make up the day), not echad. In Gen. 2:24, "flesh" acts as the collective noun (what the man and the woman as comprise together). [12] The key factor in all such passages - a factor missing from Deut. 6:4 - is that two or more "parts" are mentioned, such that the reader can immediately discern that there is some kind of "coming together" of the people or things mentioned, usually for just one purpose or goal. Echad, in fact, must maintain its meaning of "just one" for these expressions to convey their intended sense. To make our point clear: Deut. 6:4 does not say, "YHWH our God, though three (or two or whatever plural number you like), is one." There is no hint of "coming together" here. The verse says that YHWH our God is plainly, simply, one.
Wooaahh there, Nelly. You just got tripped up in your own words. The key factor is the word "Elohim" which the link admits is a plural form which would be that key factor for the word "echad" to then mean a "compound unity".
Thus the SHAMA of Deuteronomy 6:4 can most definitely teach a compound unity regarding Elohim, especially when compared to the use of the word "ONE" regarding Jesus and his Father in the New Testament, whose relationship would be the model for the compound unity of the apostles: "that they might be ONE even as we are". There were [was] more than one apostle, weren't [wasn't] there?
Ok, I looked and it is not there. (Let us) is not in the Hebrew text you showed me.
The reason the word "Elohiym" is plurl, is because translated it says "God of the living." Living, being the other people of heaven and earth. The word El for God alone is singular.
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.