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.
Here is a copy of another website with a decent compendium of various theologic positions on the doctrine of the Trinity.
I hold the doctrine of the Trinity is true and revealed in His Word.
From http://joeydelapaz.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Thoughts On The Trinity with MacGrath's Help
I thought that everyone who considered themselves evangelical are trinitarian. However, in the Philippines, a unitarian group called oneness considered themselves as evangelical also. In this blog, I will try to look at the doctrine of the Trinity and relate it in the Philippine context with materials taken from Allister McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction.
Some theologians say that you can cite only two verses from the Bible that could possibly support the Trinitarian structure. Nevertheless, the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are found in the pattern of divine activity in the New Testament. A Unitarian conception of God is inadequate to contain this dynamic activity expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity. As McGrath says, “the doctrine of the Trinity can be regarded as the outcome of a process of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in the Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Trinitarian manner."
The Historical Development of the Doctrine
Tertullian invented the terms Trinitas (Trinity), persona and substantia. It was his influence that the term Trinity became normative in the western church. Persona literally means “mask” which seems to imply that “that the one God played three distinct yet related roles in the great drama of human redemption” (295). It means that God was understood as one God who acted in a multiplicity of manners within the “economy of salvation.” The term subtantia was introduced to express the idea of unity of God; substantia is what the three persons have in common.
The doctrine of the Trinity resulted from the issue about the relationship of God to Christ. Irenaeus distinguished the roles of the Father, Son and Spirit within the economy of salvation. In the east, the tendency was to emphasize the three persons and in order to protect the unity, stressed the fact that the Son and the Spirit were both derived from the Father. On the other hand, in the west, the tendency was to emphasize the unity in revelation and redemption and explain the relation of the three persons in terms of mutual fellowship. The term used is “mutual interpenetration” (perichoresis). Another idea is the “appropriation.” The argument is that God exists in different “modes of being” at the different points in the economy of salvation.
Trinitarian Heresies
The two most important forms of Trinitarian heresies are “modalism” and “tritheism.” Modalism states that the self-revelation of the one and only God took place in different ways at different times. Tritheism on the other hand, wants to convince that the Trinity consists of three equal, independent, and autonomous beings, each of them is divine. Unity is explained in the sense that each person has one common divine nature.
Six Models
McGrath surveys six approaches to the doctrine of the Trinity. First is the Cappadocians. This is basically a modalistic approach. Its distinctive feature is the priority assigned to the Father. Their approach is best understood by its emphasis on divine unity and that godhead exists in three different “modes of being”. They explained Trinity by appealing to the relationship between a universal and its particulars.
Secondly is the Augustinian model. All the persons in the Trinity are co-equal though Son and Holy Spirit appear subordinate to the Father. The distinctive feature of this approach is the Holy Spirit’s identification with love. The Holy Spirit is the love that bounds the Trinity together. He also developed a “psychological analogies.” Trinity can be traced by looking at the human mind—the triad of mind, knowledge and love.
Thirdly is the Karl Barth’s model. The activity of the Trinity is best seen in God’s revelation of himself. God has spoken in revelation and human being could only understand and respond to the revelation through the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Father is revealed in the Son and the Spirit interprets the revelation. The most difficult aspect of Barth’s Trinity is the idea “revealedness” (Offenbarsein). It is about recognition of revelation as revelation that constitutes this “revealedness” and it is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is necessary because of sinfulness human is incapable of understanding the revelation. The weakness of Barth’s approach is its tendency to be modalist.
Fourthly is Karl Rahner’s analysis of the relation between the “economic” and the “immanent” Trinity. Economic Trinity is a way in which human experience the diversity and unity of God’s self-revelation in history. Immanent Trinity is God’s diversity and unity as it is in God. In other words, the way God is revealed and experienced in history corresponds to the way in which God actually is. “The same God who appears as a Trinity is a Trinity. The way in which God is known in self-revelation corresponds to the way God is internally” (310).
Fifthly, from a Lutheran perspective, Robert Jenson provides a fresh understanding of the Trinity. He sees the need to remain faithful to God’s self-revelation. The argument is that “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is the proper name of God who is revealed through Jesus. It is also a corresponding identifying description. In biblical polytheistic culture, the term god does not provide enough information. Hence, the doctrine of the Trinity identifies and names the Christian God in accordance to biblical witness. It serves as a protection of the concept of the Christian God against the developing concepts of god from polytheistic contexts such as Hellenistic culture. Thus, a personal conception of God derived from metaphysical speculation is a new way of understanding the Trinity. “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is a proper name that Christians are asked to use in addressing God in accordance with God’s revelation in history.
Finally, John Macquarrie’s approach comes from an existentialist perspective. God’s dynamism requires a Triune understanding, if not then human could have devised other ways of understanding God. He explores the dynamic conception of God within Christian tradition in the following manner. The Father is the primordial being. The Son is the expressive Being and the Holy Spirit as the unitive Being. Macquarrie’s idea is helpful because it links the doctrine of Trinity with the existential situation of humanity. Its weakness is the assigning of existential functions to the persons of Trinity.
The Filioque Controversy
McGrath explore the issues involved in the filioque controversy. Filioque means “from the Son” an additional phrase added by the western church centuries later to the Nicene Creed. The Greek theologians could not agree with the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds form the Father and the Son. They hold that there is only one source of being within the Trinity. Some theologians believe that this disagreement contributes to the split of eastern and western churches.
For the early Greek patristic writers the Latin approach seemed to express that there are two sources of divinity in the Godhead, they argued that the distinction between Son and the Spirit were became unclear and it tended to depersonalize the Holy Spirit. However, the Latin intent was to ensure the distinction between the Son and the Spirit and show their mutual relationship. They argued that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not from two origins but from one. MacGrath concludes that the controversy would continue for a long time.
Application to the Contemporary Situation
The doctrine of the Trinity defies explanations. Christians have realized that there is no analogy that could explain the “mystery” of the Trinity. Analogical attempts to explain it only resulted in heresies. Many Christians upon intense reflection of their strongly held understanding of the Trinity realized that it is not enough.
In the Philippines in general, Christians mostly in Roman Catholics are just resigned to the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery and an attempt to explain it is a useless undertakings. This doctrine will remain a mystery. This is a doctrine that is illogical but accepted because it is the tradition handed to them by the church. Perhaps, it is because of the tendency of the Filipino to be polytheistic. It is easy for Filipino “Folk Christians” to believe that there are many gods. It is discussed in the class how Mary was considered divine without any problem.
On the other hand, the Iglesia ni Cristo, one of the largest Filipino independent sects considered as cult refuse to believe in the Trinity because of its illogicality. Their stance is very similar to Arianism. Basically, if one wants to be Christian but could not accept the doctrine of the Trinity he or she can become a member of this sect or Jehovah’s Witness for that matter.
In Evangelical churches, the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity to the health and growth of the church has not really been explored. But some observations will be made here. First, evangelicals seem to focus much of their attention to the second person of the Trinity—Christ. The Father and the Holy Spirit are only mentioned occasionally. This “overemphasis” in Christ is responsible for the emergence of a cult called “oneness” meaning that Christ is both the Father and the Holy Spirit—heresy of modality. Second, with the renewed focus on the Holy Spirit, many churches tend to focus on the activities of the Holy Spirit. Evidently, explosive growth occurs when the church claims that the Holy Spirit is openly working in the church. But this reporter believes that a truly healthy evangelical church is a Trinitarian church.
What interlinear are you using? My interlinear, the NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English with Interlinear contains "the."
And A.T. Robertson supports the interlinear I have:
To lie to the Holy Spirit (ψευσασθαι σε το πνευμα το ἁγιον [pseusasthai se to pneuma to hagion]). Robertson, A.T.: Word Pictures in the New Testament. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, 1997, S. Ac 5:3
And here:
Acts 5:3 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος, Ἁνανία, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ Σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ νοσφίσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου; The Swanson New Testament Greek Morphology (UBS 4th Edition)
And here:
The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 Acts 5:3 Εἶπεν δὲ Πέτρος, Ἀνανία, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ Σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ νοσφίσασθαί σε ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου;
And here:
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with GRAMCORD(TM) Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological Database and McReynolds English Interlinear Acts 5:3 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος· Ἁνανία, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ νοσφίσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου;
And on and on. The various Greek texts do not support your statement.
I never said they did.
Where?
I gave the Hebrew in #111 and the link to you in #124.
We are in agreement that God is Spirit.
God also exhibits all elements involved in personality.
He creates(Gen 1:1); He destroys (Gen 18:20, 19:24,25); He provides (Psalm 104:27-30); He promotes(Psalm 75:6,7); He cares ( 1Peter 5:6,7); He hears (Psalm 94:9,10); He hates (Proverbs 6:16); He grieves (Genesis 6:6); He loves (John 3:16).
Although tomes have been written in regards to the Doctrine of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we also simply observe amongst many verses, 1Cor 3:16, the Holy Spirit indwells the body of man, and the body provides the temple of God, explicitly the Holy Spirit. We are also commanded not to Grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30). The Holy Spirit also performs numerous ministries attributed to a person, He regenerates the believing sinner (Titus 3:5), He baptizes the believing sinner (1Cor 12:13); He indwells the believing sinner (1 Cor 3:16); He seals the believing sinner (Eph 1:13). In none of these four ministries are we ever commanded to ask or perform them. They are purely actions by another person. He also fills the believing sinner (Acts 2:4).
These ministries are not transient actions attributed to the Father, rather they are real actions performed by God Himself and attributed to the Holy Spirit by Scripture.
I never said they did.
Where?
I gave the Hebrew in #111 and the link to you in #124.
And the Greek word for "the" is what?
I still have not seen one verse denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit.
Here's an online translator: http://www.in.gr/dictionary/lookup.asp?Word=the&TranslateButton2=Translate
According to my interlinear, the above word can be seen here in Acts 5:3:
| τὸ | πνεῦμα |
| the | Spirit |
I'm not speaking here for Eagle Eye, but I have noticed some innuendo on this thread insinuating that I am denying the Holy Spirit.
Let me make this very clear....so no one misunderstands.
I believe the concept of a "Trinity" encompassing God the Father, Our Saviour and the Holy Spirit is not biblical, nor was it taught by the Apostles. I believe it to be a Roman heresy right out of the Babylonian tradition and perpetuated by the Church as an early doctrine established by their Magesterium.
In no way, shape or form does this belief cause me to dispute the existence of The Holy Spirit.....nor the fact that Our Saviour is the Son of God.
Where is your evidence for that? The term "Trinity" was originally coined by Tertullian [200 AD] before the Roman Church was organized in the 4th century. And before Tertullian, there was Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Theophilus, Cyprian, and others --- well before the Roman Church. They no more invented the Trinity than they did the Bible, despite their claims.
Rome's organizing in 325-ish was only a formality of cementing apostasies that were already widely held into doctrine. How many of the ECF's that you list above were Hebrew Christians? How many were Hellenizing-friendly Greeks? Your claim that they did not invent the concept of the Trinity is quite valid as it had already existed for over a thousand years.
You, of course, are correct. The Universal Church was not formally organized until 325 A.D. at Nicea. The doctrine of the Trinity was accepted as dogma by this new Imperial State Religion. Later at Constantinople (381 A.D.) the doctrine was made official and complete. In addition to this apostasy the Church began to kill folks in the name of God....those who would not convert or accept this new Trinity Theory.
At the same time other non biblical practices began to emerge from this State Religion such as Mary worship, Penitence, Transubstantiation, Indulgences, Infant Baptism from Jesus' name to the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The power of this State religion knew no bounds and grew to be the biggest, richest and most influential political movement in the world. Many Churches eventually broke away because of these practices....but yet, kept the false doctrine of the Trinity without questioning it.
So, where did this doctrine come from? It began in Babylon where much apostasy had it's start [Revelation 17:3-5]. It then spread throughout the ancient world. Babylon's Triad was "Nimrod/Father, Tammuz/Son, and Semirimus/Mother". The Triad of Egypt was called "Osiris, Horus, and Isis"; Greece..."Zeus, Apollo and Athena"; India..."Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva"; Rome..."Jupiter, Mars and Venus"; Catholicism..."Father, Son and Holy Ghost".
The Trinity of back slided Israel was called Baal/Father, Tammuz/Son and Ashtoreth/Mother.....and yes, it too came from Babylon.
After the Israelites of the north had been taken captive to Assyria (721 B.C.) for worshiping these same Babylonian Gods the king of Assyria repopulated the north with folks from Babylon....and they became known as Samaritans. [II Kings 17:6] In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the Israelites to Assyria. He settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in the towns of the Medes. (verse 7) All this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshiped other gods.
[II Kings 17:24] The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns. (verse 33) They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought. To this day they persist in their former practices. They neither worship the LORD nor adhere to the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands that the LORD gave the descendants of Jacob, whom he named Israel.
These folks....the Samaritans of Babylonian extraction, were the same people our Lord cautioned the Apostles about when he said: [Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."
Simon Magus was a Samaritan....a descendant of Babylonians and we read in [Acts 8:9-11]Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, "This man is the divine power known as the Great Power." They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic."
Simon was a Trinitarian because he still believed in the religion of his Fathers [II Kings 17:33-34] Simon is mentioned quite frequently by the Church Fathers as being in Rome....supposedly at the same time Peter was to have been there....although this has always been impossible to square with scripture. Simon, after his rejection by Peter, began to fashion his own "Christian" church -- a church of which HE was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow the True Church of God. His idea was to blend together Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of Christ -- especially to take the name of Christ -- and thus create one universal church! But a church with Babylonianism as its basis. Luke gives in detail the principal character who established the so called Christian counterpart of the Truth in the Apostles’ days. This is the reason the Apostles in their Church letters many times mention the false system as already in existence, but fail to describe its origin. They didn't have to. That was already done right in chapter 8 of Acts....by Luke!
So....Tertullian may have "coined" the word Trinity....but the concept had been around for some time.
[Acts 2:38]Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
But --- if the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of God were the "us" who created the world and everything in it, then all of these Triads are counterfeits of the real Trinity of Scripture. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed long before these pagan Triads who were just imitations of what the deceiving spirits knew the truth to be.
Pagans also prayed to their god[s] --- does that make prayer a pagan practice? Pagans sacrificed to their god[s]? Did that make Israel's sacrifices pagan practices? There were a lot of things that the pagans did that the Jews and the Christians also did. But the big question is: "who was imitating whom?"
Furthermore, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, ... all worshipped a lot more than just a three god Triad. The emergence of a Triad from all of these gods that they worshipped would very well be an acknowledgment from deep within them, or the deceiving spirits guiding them, that the real God is a Trinity. Their Triad would be their attempt at a counterfeit Godhead --- an imitation of the truth not vice versa.
Please explain to me who these three are: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Are they all the same person? If so where does it say so in the New Testament?
The only person in the early church that I am aware of that ever claimed to be the Father-the Son-and the Holy Spirit, all in one person, was none other than the great sorcerer SIMON MAGUS himself. He wasn't a Trinitarian. He was a UNITARIAN.
Tertullian certainly wasn't nor were most all of the early church fathers. The Gnostics and disciples of Simon Magus were however followers of Greek philosophy. Irenaeus was a Trinitarian and at the same time wrote against the heresies of these Hellenizing Gnostics.
It does appear that the Ante-Nicene church was split between the trinitarian and the binitarian position, not knowing just exactly if the Holy Spirit was part of the Godhead with the Father and the Son --- but the unitarian position of the Arians led them into some outrageous heretical beliefs.
Your claim that they did not invent the concept of the Trinity is quite valid as it had already existed for over a thousand years.
No --- longer than that. They were the "us" there at creation and from eternity past.
Please explain who exactly the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament are.
If you do some research you'll find that this trinity "proof text" doesn't really exist and was a later addition. Even the trinitarian commentaries admit it.
----------------------------------------------
"1 John 5:7-8
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The text of this verse should read, "Because there are three that bear record". The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era.
8. The three witnesses are the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
"The trinity of witnesses furnish one testimony" (Plummer, The Epistles, p. 116) namely that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to die for sin that men might live."
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)
------------------------------------------------
"1 John 5:7
There are three that bear record] The FATHER, who bears testimony to his Son; the WORD or Logos (NT:3056), who bears testimony to the Father; and the HOLY SPIRIT, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world. But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every manuscript of this letter written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is missing in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, AEthiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.
The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following:
"6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.
9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc."
The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these:
[In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth.]
To make the whole clearer, that every reader may see what has been added, I shall set down these verses, with the inserted words in parentheses.
"6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7. For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth), the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.
9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc."
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)
-----------------------------------------------------
"1 John 5:7
Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts, in any form, which support the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one: and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Revianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them, the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99. of the eighth century. A Scholium quoted in Matthaei shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for all Greek manuscripts ("there are three that bear record"), the Scholiast notices, have "three," masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are SYMBOLS OF THE TRINITY. To this Cyprian, 196, refers: 'Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, "And these three are one" ' (a unity)."
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
Just because I don't have a nice, neat answer, doesn't make Rome's answer correct. Working from the standpoint that we actually can figure all this out is itself contrary to scrpture. The notion that we have to know everything assumes that God owes us an explanation and actually puts us in the drivers seat.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
1Co 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
My biggest theological problem with Jesus being God and man at the same time is that would completely negate His atoning sacrifice. If only His earthly body died, yet his deity lived on, then our sins haven't been atoned for. I believe that God is God and Jesus is His Son, but Jesus has been His Son for eternity and He voluntarily came down here and took human form as part of the plan of salvation laid out at the foundation of the world.
The volume of scriptures where Jesus references His Father in Heaven while He was on the earth is an incredible indication to me that they are two separate entities. They are united and "one" in unity of thought that is not knowable by our carnal, sinful minds. Jesus being seated at the right hand of the Father is also another huge problem for those who believe that Jesus and God are the same entity.
Oh, yeah, the Holy Spirit. I think the Holy Spirit is a power that God doles out to whomever He wishes in order to help htat person make disciples and such. If you look back to 2Kings 13:21, you will see that the Holy Spirit stayed in Elisha's bones post mortem. I don't think that 1/3 of God would hang out in a grave with Elisha just to make a cool scriptural point!
You might want to look into Matthew 28:19 as well:
Matt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, ***baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost***:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
KJV
--------------------------------
"While no MS. of the first three centuries is inexistence, we do have the writings of at least two men who did actually possess, or had access to MSS. much earlier than our earliest now in existence. And there were others who quoted the passage of Matthew 28:19 in those early times.
Who were these men? When did they write? Has they access to very early MSS.? Were they reliable and exact? How did they quote Matthew 28:19? These are the questions that must be answered."
*snip*
"Eusebius As A Witness:
There were several men of this name. The one with whom we are concerned is known as Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea. He was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He lived in times of gross spiritual darkness, he was a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed...."
*snip*
" According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: "
"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."
from:
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html
Why would one of the greatest trinitarians leave out the greatest proof-text of the trinity from his writings?. Because it wasn't in the manuscripts that he had access to? Do a google search, there's plenty more out there.
Jesus said that the scriptures bear witness to Him and he bears witness to Himself. God the Father bears witness. John 5:
5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish , the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
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.