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.
More of the ususal stuff. The trinintarians trot out their texts and refuse to respond to questions regarding the contradictions they manufacture with their misinterpretations while expecting me to always answer their 'what about this...' questions.
I think if you look at #185 and #186 you'll get the drift.
So then all of those great Hebrew scholars before 1611, on the KJV translating committee, and since then have all been wrong?
That's too easy! LOL...
The religious leaders of Jesus time had perverted the religion that God gave them with all kinds of man made traditions and twisted interpretations.
(Nothing has changed, the same is true today)
They claimed to Jesus that they were of their father Abraham and following his rules and laws.
Jesus pointed out that if they really were of Abraham they would celebrate him instead of revile him. Jesus then pointed out that they were in reality of the devil instead of God.
He tells then that the laws of Abraham were the ways, but that now, in this day and age, he, Jesus is the new way.
(Don't forget that the Greek texts had no capital letters and no puntuation, so all that is man made and prone to error. Actually I'm sure I'm infomorming you of this for the first time! lol...)
Anyway, Jesus tells them that before (in time past) Abriaham was (but today) I am.
Again, Abraham was the way to redemtion, but now I am.
If you think that Jesus was simply trying to one-up them on seniority by declaring that he was here before Abraham, not only does that not make any sense, it doesn't fit with the context of the discussion.
If you are trying to say that because Jesus uttered the words "I am" that makes him God because Jehova said "I am that I am"
Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
There is no "to be" verb in Hebrew. (That also comes to play in Genesis 1:1,2) In Exodus, God was telling Moses that he (God) would become what he would become, that he could be whatever Moses needed him to be. This falls right in line with the 'Redemptive' namde of God ie, Jehova Repha, Jehova Shabat, Jehova Tsidkenu, etc. It is the same God with different names that describe his relationship to his people.
The baalim was a counterfeit of this and had a puriality of aspects to it but was not ever considered a single entity. This is one of the reasons that the scripture emphsizes that God is ONE GOD and that GOD is ONE, not two, not three.
There ya go.
Now to you...
Jhn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Ok, here Jesus says that he is the son of man. It says in the book of Numbers that God is not the son of man.
If God is not the son of man and Jesus is the son of man, then Jesus is not God.
Jhn 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Jesus tells them that he comes FROM God, not that he is God. Jesus clearly differentiates himself from God. Sorry, you won't find "God the Son" anywhere in the Bible. Using that term is unBiblical. God sent Jesus, not Jesus sent himself or God sent himself.
Jhn 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
Again, clearly differentiating Jesus from God. Jesus knew that he was the son of God; God knew that Jesus was his son, I believe that Jesus is the son of God, why do you believe that he is God?
Jhn 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.
There ya go.
I gave you the resources to look at it and you haven't followed those links yet to see it for yourself, have you?
There are places in the Bible where it is clear that the translators just added words that are not supported by the ancient texts.
So you go look the stuff up and then tell me.
If you have the guts to actually look it up, but I'm not holding my breath!
Jhn 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
The word "one" is not in the ancient text. You can see it yourself in an interlinear or in a concordance.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=19&verse=18&version=KJV#18
It should better read, Where they crucified him, and two other with him on this side and that side and Jesus in the midst.
Go ahead and see for yourself. Is this a case of translating or a case of making sure that the end product reflects the popular thought of the day?
Abraham never ceased to be the path, or rather, the example of the path to salvation.
Gal 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Abraham was saved by faith, so are we. This is the entire theme of the Bible.
We are Abraham's by adoption.
I do not have to follow Abraham for salvation. In fact, it would be wrong for me to seek salvation by following Abraham and the subsequent ways.
Abraham was...Christ is!
That's fine. So how should Genesis 1:26 read. Post your opinion of how it should read, if you have the guts.
Huh? Abraham was saved by faith. He loved the Lord more than his own life - more than his own son's life. Jesus says there is no greater love than a man to lay down his life for another. This is the entire theme of the Bible. This IS Salvation. There is no other path. Following Abraham's example is the ONLY way to be saved.
Abraham was...Christ is!
This is nonsense. This looks like a notion concocted by men to insinuate that Christianity is something different than the faith of the OT. I worship the God of Abraham, Icaac, Jacob, and Christ.
Joh 8:23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
I can see right now that I should have made this post with over kill. I wonder if there is enuff room for all the info, that would debunk the introduction of trinitarism by the Catholic Church. How many mega bits can these post hold?
There is a thread around here on Protestantism that is over 11K replies. I recommending posting in stages, though. Long posts don't really get read much.
I've taken EVERY ONE of you on and demolished your reasonings without any decent response from any of you save one.
I've had to deal with one of your group who doesn't even recognize it when he directly, clearly and word for word contradicts the Bible.
You are still showing significant flaws in fundamental study techniques by failing to focus on the clear verses and build from there, instead preferring sometimes flawed verses that support your theology.
God is spirit, invisible, not a man, not a son of man, not susceptible to temptation. There is only one God and God is one.
Jesus was/is a man, visible, frequently called son of man and son of God. Jesus came in the flesh and is the only mediator between man and God.
God called Jesus his son. Jesus called himself God's son. Peter, Paul, the centurian and many others there at the time called Jesus the son of God.
God is not a man; Jesus is. Jesus is not a god.
Terms like trinity, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, three in one, triune, etc do not exist in the Bible and are unBiblical.
So in order to still believe in and promote the trinity you have to use unBiblical terms and concepts, rely on flawed texts, misinterpret scripture, and ignore dozens if not hundreds of clear scripture that is perfectly in context.
Then on a personal note, you didn't have the courage to look up a couple items yet you have the nerve to place a dare at my feet....you are pitiful.
Yeah, whatever. I'm not sure what you're saying anymore, it doesn't make a lot of sense especially in the context of these discussions.
One can be saved and never know Abraham.
If one tries to follow the law, then one is trying to be saved by works and not grace.
Abraham's faith and salvation was based on a continuing belief of the coming messiah.
My salvation is based on confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God raised him from the dead.
Abraham's way of salvation won't work today.
Usually, me and Diego are usually off in our own little world, but on this thread, I'm afraid that you are the one who is confusing the crap out of everyone.
One can be saved and never know Abraham.
It's not a matter of knowing Abraham, it is a matter of emulating Abraham. Before Jesus, Abraham was the best example of a true believer. He understood that God gave him a son, and for that matter everything, and that God could take it away. Abraham had so much faith, demonstrated through is works, that he is the pinnacle of salvation for the entire planet. If you haven't studied the parallels between what Abraham did and what God has done for us, then perhaps you might want to go back to the drawing board.
If one tries to follow the law, then one is trying to be saved by works and not grace.
One is only saved by grace, through faith, but faith without works is death. This antinomianism that has permeated our society and theologies is a cancer that is in total opposition to our Lord.
Mat 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
Abraham's faith and salvation was based on a continuing belief of the coming messiah.
Indeed, Abraham was saved by Jesus' atoning sacrifice looking forward, we are saved by looking backward at the sacrifice of God's spotless Lamb.
1Pe 1:17 If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;
1Pe 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,
1Pe 1:19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
1Pe 1:20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
1Pe 1:21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God
My salvation is based on confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God raised him from the dead.
And then what? Have you ever heard the one about how Billy Graham is the best preacher on the planet, providing you get hit by a bus and die on the way home from the revival. Walking around saying "Lord, Lord" like a rapper getting an award isn't gonna cut, my FRiend. You have to DO something with this faith. You have to sanctify yourself.
Abraham's way of salvation won't work today.
Then why are we the adopted son's of Abraham and heirs according to the promise? What is different between Abraham's salvation and our own? I contend it is EXACTLY the same. Either we believe God and keep his Commandments, or we don't.
Let's see. Oh, here from the same post.
"The translation of "let us" is not supported by the Hebrew text."
Then you're Jewish.
No. I believe what's written, not what you wrote.
Well, ya. Thought you knew that.
"I never said the Jews can't understand Hebrew"
Let's see.
Oh, here from the same post.
"The translation of "let us" is not supported by the Hebrew text."
And..?
Once again, the show me where the Jews participated in producing the KJV.
I can show you from a standard reference that even you can read that the translation isn't supported by the text.
Sorry, but not only am I not reading your post, I'm asking you not to send me any more pings or freepmails.
I don't understand your point and your messages really don't interest me.
Again, sorry, but please leave me alone.
Know, I didn't. The others here believe in the NT, which I know a Jew doesn't believe.
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.