Trinity Facts

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.

There are places in the Bible where it is clear that the translators just added words that are not supported by the ancient texts.

One of the problems is the Hebrew word "Elohim". As used in Genesis 1:26, it should read in the singular...but is translated, reads and governs the plural verb "make" as a plural itself. This is incorrect. Elohim can be translated in the plural....as when speaking of "pagan" gods etc., but when speaking of the one, true God....it should be rendered in the singular. So....is it a uni-plural noun....or isn't it? The answer is yes....and no!

Genesis 1:29 renders "Elohim" correctly....in the singular. Same word as used for God in Genesis 1:26 governs the singular phrase "I give you every seed bearing plant..." In verse 26 the phrase of course is in the plural. The noun "Elohim" governs both verses.....so, which is it?

Throughout the Old Testament the Hebrew noun "Elohim" behaves as a singular noun and governs singular verbs, adjectives and pronouns. Verse 27 is also in the singular, not saying "they" or "their"....but "He"....in "His" image.

So, why does it say "Us" in the translation? We know that the translators were Trinitarians....that's a given. They had preconceived notions. The verbal mood for expressing a command to the "first person singular....or plural" is referred to as a Cohortative mood. This is related to the imperative mood which is a more common mood for expressing commands from the first person....to the second person singular. The Cohortative mood is found in Genesis 1:26. The singular person, God, addresses Himself jointly with those present at the time. Therefore in Genesis 1:26 God, and those present with Him, jointly make up the plurality expressed by the pronoun "Us".

The plurality of "Us" extends back to God and the Cohortative mood causes God, as the speaker who issued the command, to be singular.

The first person may be singular,(I, you, he). It can also be plural,(we, you, they). The first person can only speak to the second person. Speaking to the third person is ungrammatical. You can speak about them...but not to them. The first person can speak to the first person singular as when speaking to them self. But when the first person speaks to the first person plural, he addresses himself and the ones with him.

The three verbal moods for expressing commands or intentions are "Imperative, Cohortative and Jussive". All three moods are used by the first person and he may address them to the first person by using the Cohortative mood, or to the second person by using the Imperative mood and to the third person by using the Jussive mood.

The imperative mood is usually used by a superior to a subordinate...like "Sit down!" In the Jussive mood the command for a third person to a second person would be, "Make him sit down!" It is impossible for a first person to speak directly to a third person because the third person is the one being spoken about to the second person.

In the Cohortative mood the first person commands the first person, singular or plural. When the first person commands himself (first person singular)...it is as "I will sit down". But when the first person commands the first person plural, the command would be "let us sit down". The first person (subject) is still singular. The plurality of the ones commanded does not extend back to the subject.

Immediately before the words "Let us make man in our image" we read "And (he) Elohim said" וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים. The word וַיֹּאמֶר "and he said" is the third person singular form of the verb אמר (qal inverted future). This indicates that the speaker is a singular individual. Were Elohim a plurality the verse would have opened "And (they) Elohim said" וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֱלֹהִים. The phrase "Elohim said/ spoke" appears about fifty times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in every single instance it is "(he) God said/ spoke" in the singular and never "(they) God said/ spoke" in the plural.

But, then I could be wrong!

"We know that the translators were Trinitarians....that's a given. They had preconceived notions."

No. The Jews aren't trinitarians. I gave their translation.

From Job 38-7, "And all sons of God shout for joy?"

The Jewish believe these are angels.

"I said [Genesis 1:26]"Let us make man in Our image" does not prove a Trinity......does not even suggest it!"

That's correct on it's own. The Jews believed they were angels, as in Gen 3. It's not until the NT that the meaning becomes clear. John 1:1-5, Isaiah 63, and the other passages I posted makes it very clear. Man being a trinity of soul, body and spirit, was made in the image and likeness of God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That's the evidence for the Trinity. It's the NT that makes it so.

Matt 11:27
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

No one knows the Father, except the Son, and those whom the Son chooses to reveal Him!

In reading these posts, I have bcome more convinced that until one is called by the Father, and the believer places faith in Him through the Son, then the Holy Spirit doesn't rgenerate the human spirit in the believer.

Instead, a human who seeks to find God on his own, independent of believing in God hrough faith in Christ, simply scars his own thinking processes and interprets Scripture purely from a soulish perspective.

Likewise for believers who have sinned, but have never returned to God through faith in Him by His protocols, there is a tremendous worldly system of religion which pulls at the reversionistic carnal Christian, luring him into false religion. The carnal Christian seeking solace, but without actually returning to the true Christ, might fall back onto past soulish thinking, turnign to a worldly system of religion instead of relying on God the Holy Spirit.

The more he studies Scripture while out of fellowship with God, the further he scars his own soul, further decreasing his conscience from signaling his deeper reversion from God.

There are only two groups of humans, believers and unbelievers. If an unbeliever, the first issue is to come to God by believing in Him through faith in Christ. This only possible through the work of each person of the Godhead, one God. If a believer, the issue is to keep short accounts and remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ. 1stJohn 1:9 provides ample guidance for those who deny His Divinity in post salvation sin. Then after returning to fellwoship with Him, the believer must allow God the Holy Spirit to do all the work of transmitting the LOGOS to our understanding, to our mind, to our heart and remain in fellowship with Him as we put doctrine into practice as we are tested.

Those who deny the Son, or the Holy Spirit merely blind themselves to the grace He has made available to them.

Those who deny the Son, do not have the Father in them, nor the Son.

Where wast thou when I founded earth? Declare, if thou hast known understanding. Who placed its measures -- if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched out upon it a line? On what have its sockets been sunk? Or who hath cast its corner-stone?. In the singing together of stars of morning, And all sons of God shout for joy? Here is the "Us" of Genesis 1:26.

Not so. These sons of God are merely shouting for joy. They are observing not participating in the creation. The "us" in Genesis 1:26 are participating not just observing.

Genesis 1:2 says: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Could that "Spirit of God" be the "the Holy Spirit"? Hmmm??? Otherwise why not just say: "and God moved upon the face of the waters.".

Why "the Spirit" here? It does not say that "part of God's spirit", or "a" spirit but "the" Spirit giving this Spirit specificity and a separable identity in the act of creation.

my apologies if this has already been covered:

1 John 3:1-3
3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.
3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
NASB

1 John 3:1-3
3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
KJV

---------------------------------------

1 Cor 15:20-28
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
KJV

Heb 2:7-18
7 Thou (God) madest him (Jesus) a little lower than the angels; thou (God) crownedst him (Jesus) with glory and honour, and didst set him (Jesus) over the works of thy (God's) hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
KJV

As I see it, verses supporting the Trinity can also be found in Romans chapter 8.

1-2:Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
5: Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
9: You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
13-14: For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
33-35: Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

What we see in chapter 8 are references to God, Jesus and the Spirit and how they relate to each other. There is more in chapter 8 that best fits into the concept of the Trinity as well.

Those who deny the Son, or the Holy Spirit merely blind themselves to the grace He has made available to them.

Those who deny the Son, do not have the Father in them, nor the Son.

A couple words that are immensley important are 'confess' and 'in'.

'Confess' (homologeo) means to say the same thing. A confession means that one truly and without reservation believes in his heart what he says. (See Romans 10:9,10)

'In' (en) means to be in (duh!), totally in, not partially out. One is either in or not in. If one is partially outside a real, one is not 'in' that realm. One is either standing inside a circle drawn on the ground or is not inside that circle, no inbetween or also to it. In or out.

1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Jesus is the Christ. The one God sent, the one God annointed one, the one that God glorified.

1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

1Jo 2:26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

1Jo 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Confesses the Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, in, totally in, not a portion outside.

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Anyone that fails to confess, truly say what they believe, that Jesus has come in the flesh (totally man) is not of God.

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

How can anyone truly confess that Jesus is the Son of God and God all at the same time? It doesn't say confess Jesus as God, it says confess him as Son of God!

1Jo 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

So we see that the whole context of this is about idolotry. Failing to confess that Jesus has come in the flesh and that he is the Son of God falls in the realm of idolotry.

2Jo 1:7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So far no one here has disputed or corrected me when I claim that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God who was born of Mary and lived a sinless life and became the full payment for our sin. The man Jesus obeyed his father, God Almighty, and was crucified and died. God Almight raised his son Jesus on the third day and the raised him up where he now sits on his (God's) right hand.

There is but one God and that God is one. God is not a man, is spirit and is invisible.

There is only ne mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who was obedient to his Father God who sent him.

God is the creator. Jesus is his son.

Jesus is not God.

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.