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.
What part of the word NO dont you understand. I checked "YOUR" Hebrew text and it was not there, IN THE HEBREW. IT WAS NOT THERE. I used my books on Hebrew to see if it was there. It was not there. It is indeed AIT: assisted in translation. In other words not really there.
The Jews and everyone else thinks it's there. I really don't care what you say about it, because what you say doesn't match the reality of the matter. If you don't like that, take it up with the Jews. Demand that they correct and change their translations, and make sure to teach them the proper way to read Hebrew, so they don't make any more mistakes like this again.
Its flattering how tenaciously you're sticking up for us. Does that mean you no longer believe in the deity of Jesus as well?
Ofcourse it is, it is a 1Person common plural.
It is translated 'let us' in Joshua 22:26 and 2Ki.4:10.
'Let us' is referring to the person of the verb (1st common Plural).
There was one criminal at either side of Christ so the translation is correct and is in every major translation that I have checked, modern and pre-1611.
That there may have been more than two criminals is possible, but there were at least two, one on each side of Christ.
Let us be clear here: This is how the Jews on their own website translate Genesis 1:26 from the Hebrew into the English:
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
The Hebrew scholars of Jewish persuasion see the "let us" in the form of that Hebrew verb. It is a first person plural.
Now, let us move on to your next problem: the word: "our". Are you going to say that the word "our" is missing in Genesis 1:26 as well? How come the Jewish translators can see these words in their own scriptures and you can't. They don't like the fact that they are there because it is hard for them deal with and for their rabbis to adequately explain, but they know that that is how the scriptures of Moses clearly read.
Do you have some kind of theological blinders on? Tell us where this passage is translated correctly according to your theology.
I agree with you 1000 silverlings, after reading this thread, Four verses just jumped out at me. The first was 1- Cor. 10:12 "Let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" (N.A.S.) Getting back to faith for a moment, Hebrews 11:1 says in the King James version " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Our small minds can not yet fathom the exact nature of God. The one thing I don't think I'll ever understand, but I just plain believe, is how three distinct entities can be one. I believe God in Heaven, after many prophets were rejected by mankind, decided to come down to Earth himself, to show us how much he loves us, to break the reign of sin that Adam had initiated, and to show us how to live our lives in a way that we would have a more intimate relationship with him. He came down and in although in the full nature of God, was born as a man. He needed to live a sinless life in order to defeat the power of sin over mankind, right on through to the end of his earthly life. Having done this, Being God, he rose again from the dead.(Something else I don't think I'll ever quite understand, I just believe that it happened) and so returning to heaven, but leaving behind part of himself, the Comforter, Or Holy Spirit (also God) to fill, guide, protect and convict us. To be part of our whole being, to live within us. Hebrews 11:6 (N.I.V.)-" And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him". 2nd Timothy 2:23 (N.A.S.) "but refuse foolish and endless speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels" or the N.I.V. states it this way " Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels" the next verse says " And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." If we try to have all the answers and "proof" of the nature of God why would we need faith at all? God wants people who honestly love him and trust him to live with him in eternity, I don't think he approves of "know-it-alls" but I know he love them just the same Because God is not a respecter of persons. He loves all people equally, not willing that any of us should perish, but that we should all live with him for eternity. BUT he gave us all a free will to choose or believe what we want to, and also do as we please anything our hearts or minds desire, but not without consequence. He WILL separate the wheat from the tares, because we can't work or connive our way into heaven or live a life of Godlessness and think all is well. This is serious business. I don't know where the exact verse is but I think it was Paul who said "Let each person work out his own salvation with fear and trembling" or something like that. Somewhere else I remember someone saying, either one of the Apostles or Jesus. " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding" (or wisdom) Even though the word trinity is not in the bible the concept is all throughout. God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit(or Comforter) are all one in the same, but yet distinct in their own unique natures. I guess we'll understand it more clearly when we get to heaven. You either believe that God's word is true and inerrant as laid down by the holy spirit through men or you don't. Romans 10:17 says (K.J.V.) " So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God".
"Paragraphs are our friends!"
Amen Rainwaves.
"Now, let us move on to your next problem: the word: "our". Are you going to say that the word "our" is missing in Genesis 1:26 as well?" "LET US" not change the subject about the words "LET US" not being in the HEBREW scripture. Why dont you get out your own books on Hebrew and look to see if the words "Let us" are there. Then you can tell every one here what you found.
The reason the word "Elohiym" is plurl, is because translated it says "God of the living." Living, being the other people of heaven and earth. The word El for God alone is singular. Just because God has many name titles, that does not make Him more than one person. God the Father is Holy Spirit.
[Genesis 1:27] And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.
[Genesis 1:29] And God saith, 'Lo, I have given to you every herb sowing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which [is] the fruit of a tree sowing seed, to you it is for food.
[Genesis 1:31] And God seeth all that He hath done, and lo, very good; and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day the sixth.
[Genesis 2:2] And God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made.
[Genesis 2:3] And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared for making.
[Genesis 2:8] And Jehovah God planteth a garden in Eden, at the east, and He setteth there the man whom He hath formed;
Well.....I could go on and on.....but I think everyone gets the idea. After 1:26 what happens to the plural noun, Elohim? It becomes singular! Any thoughts?
No problem, like I said the name word Elohiym means "God of the living", The word "living" is refering to all that live. It does not mean that God is plural, because the word "El" is singular. He who is singular is God of the plural.
I have re-read the entire thread and my pings in/out-- and my Freepmail... and received no specific communications from you about these apologetic resources.
I think you have intended to ask the above question (#295) of someone else.
Have a great day...
The Trinity is strongly implied by Scripture from Genesis thru revelation. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all spoken of in Scriptural text. The Church's doctrine of the Trinity does not stretch beyond what is reasonable.
If you are Christian, you accept and believe in the Trinity. If you are not Christian, then don't. Otherwise you are like the man who wants to be in the army but does not want to march.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
This is interesing read!
You are all trying to count how many in the Trinity?
Now you have the traditional 3 in one God!
Now you have
1-God the Father who is a spirit!
2-Only begotten Son Jesus Christ who now has a resurrected body of Flesh and Bone.
3- the Holy Spirit and who is the Holy Ghost
So when resurrected Jesus now of Flesh and Bone return to His Father of Spirit, Jesus sat on the right hand side of God the Father a Spirit!
So the 3 in One spirits are now
Spirit Father, Resurrected Son and the Holy Ghost!
To clear up some confusion of what is pagan and what is Divine.
A Pagan Sacrifice would be human or beast etc.
Where as a Divine Sacrifice was to be be a great and last sacrifice also it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
So the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are Divine being of the Godhead. So trinity would not qualitfy to be Pagan.
Be sides the Godhead is not human.
Jesus was of both the son of man and the Son of God.
No human has that parentage!
You have cleared up nothing....and I don't think we are talkin' sacrifice here!
All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon, have adopted in one form or another a trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz; In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus; within Israel pagan gnosticism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah; In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. But in Old Testament Judaism there was only One God, a numerical ONE.
If you cannot see that the Nicean council adopted this heresy as a convenience and established an un Biblical creed to support it.....well....what can I say? You are simply following pagan doctrine established by the Roman church. So be it.
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.