Trinity Facts

http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Talk:Trinity/old1 ^ | Many.

[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.

[Eagle Eye]

Rubbish! There is no Hebrew NT! Get a clue. The NT is in Koine Greek.

Get a grip....you don't think that I know that pnuematikos is Greek and not Hebrew? lol

But you've demonstrated again why this discussion can't get beyond the 'is not!/is too! level. Now go back and look at a GREEK concordance or interlinear and see if I'm right or wrong. BTW, you could also go to a Youngs or Strongs and see what we're talking about with the 'let us' translation.

[Eagle Eye]

Ok, last word is that I've been supporting your assertions all along.

[spunkets]

"Now go back and look at a GREEK concordance or interlinear and see if I'm right or wrong. BTW, you could also go to a Youngs or Strongs and see what we're talking about with the 'let us' translation."

To get a Hebrew translation. Right, that'll work. I trust the Jews can read there own language and convert it into English. I do not believe what you say about the matter, because you can't even grasp that concept. Your claim amounts to, "the Jews are too stupid, to get it right". "Only us privileged unitarians know and understand these things, and the trinity is a Catholic/Jewish conspiracy to hide the truth."

[Eagle Eye]

Once again, Jews did not translate the KJV.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=26&strongs=06213&page=

Gen 1:26 ¶ 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.


Let us make [06213] `asah

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

---

What we're seeing here is that "let us" strays from the typical translation of the word "`asah".

It's a red flag any time a translation strays from typical usage.

[spunkets]

"Once again, Jews did not translate the KJV. "

Your pearls are made of plastic.

[Eagle Eye]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV#The_Project

Committees
First Westminster Company, translating from Genesis to 2 Kings:
Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;

First Cambridge Company, translated from 1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon:
Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing;

First Oxford Company, translated from Isaiah to Malachi:
John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough;

Second Oxford Company, translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation:
Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar;
Second Westminster Company, translated the Epistles:
William Barlow, John Spencer, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson;

Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha:
John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, John Ward, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.

In January 1609, a General Committee of Review met at Stationers' Hall, London to review the completed manuscripts from the six companies. The committee included John Bois, Andrew Downes, John Harmer, and others known only by their initials, including "AL" (who may be Arthur Lake).

Some have claimed that the playwright William Shakespeare was involved in the translation, pointing to Psalm 46 as proof, where, counting 46 words from the beginning, one comes upon the word "shake", and counting 46 words backwards from the end, one comes upon the word "spear". Additionally, Shakespeare was 46 years of age at the time of the translating. Most scholars dismiss claims of Shakespeare's involvement in translating the King James Version, and do not accept this example as evidence of his involvement. Notably, the Geneva Bible and several other earlier translations contained the same coincidence, despite several of them being published before or just shortly after Shakespeare's birth. [1]
The original printing of the King James Version was published by Robert Barker in 1611 and could be bought looseleaf for ten shillings (s), or bound for twelve.

---

Where are the Jews involved in the translation?

[spunkets]

"Where are the Jews involved in the translation?"

The OT belongs to the Jews. They can read plain Hebrew. What they say, is the final word! If someone else claims different, they are simply wrong.

[spunkets]

Oh, look what the KJV says!

Gen 1:26
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.

The KJV agrees with the Jews, so it's a Catholic/Jewish/Protestant conspiracy! Oh no, the whole world's against us!

[Eagle Eye]

The OT belongs to the Jews. They can read plain Hebrew. What they say, is the final word! If someone else claims different, they are simply wrong.

LOL....Jews are VERY monotheistic! They believe in ONE GOD and that GOD is ONE!

Jews don't believe in a triune god or a trinity!

They certainly don't believe that Jesus helped create the heavens and Earth.

So since you want to go with the Jews' beliefs...LOL...

[Eagle Eye]

Did you even bother reading post 184?

[spunkets]

"LOL....Jews are VERY monotheistic! They believe in ONE GOD and that GOD is ONE!"

The joke is on you my son, for thou hast professed that thou believest the NT, and thou hast claimeth that the Jews can't readeth their own language! Thou art confused beyond all measure. I refuse to believeth in you. Thou art both invisible, and thine peals art plastic.

[Diego1618]

Haven't been following the thread for a day or so....What's up?

What's all the controversy about "Let us" make man in our own image? Bring me up to date....please.

[Diego1618]

[Isaiah 44:6] Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God.

[Genesis 1:26] And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.

I guess then.....the next question is, why doesn't Genesis 1:27 read like this? "So God created man in Their Own image, in the image of God They created him; male and female They created them."

Got an answer?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

The OT belongs to the Jews. They can read plain Hebrew. What they say, is the final word! If someone else claims different, they are simply wrong.

They can read Dueteronomy 13 pretty plainly as well. :-)

[Diego1618]

This really gets interesting.

Why doesn't [Genesis 1:29] read thusly: And God saith, `Lo, We have given to you every herb sowing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which [is] the fruit of a tree sowing seed, to you it is for food;

[spunkets]

"They can read Dueteronomy 13 pretty plainly as well."

Yes, I think they do.

Deut 13:1-3
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

[Invincibly Ignorant]

there ya go

[spunkets]

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

There ya go.

[Eagle Eye]

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

And you misquote the Bible...again!

Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Not only do you misquote it, you make false claims and assertions about me. I never said the Jews can't understand Hebrew, I said that Jews didn't translate the KJV and then showed you who was on the committees and challenged you to show me the Jews on those committees.

You didn't because you couldn't.

You're not very careful in the small things, like offering a correct Bible quote (and you did use quotation marks!) so I'm also sure you won't properly handle larger things like proper interpretation techniques.

Heck, you're haveing problems understanding and comprehending English, so what makes anyone here think you can deal with any other languages?

The translation of "let us" is not supported by the Hebrew text.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Sorry no can do. He's a dreamer of dreams and giveth me a sign and a wonder. I'll have to heed the warning of Moses. But thanx for the suggestion. :-)