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.
As I see it, EE, none of your arguments poke any holes in the doctrine of the Trinity. You are not so much disproving the Trinity as you are denying the incarnation.
If you accept the biblical truth of the incarnation ... that "the Word became flesh" ... all those arguments you made against the Trinity really become irrelevant.
Yes, some of the quotations are disingenuous ... for instance, the citation from Tyndale NT Commentaries.
The evangelical scholars who wrote the Tyndale series are as trinitarian as they come. Yet the selective and partial quotation makes it appear as though R.T. France (the author of the Matthew volume) is calling into question the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28.
Have a nice day...
It does?
Man has a body, soul, and spirit. The spirit is all those things that combined form self, or the person. The body is the machine that supports the functions of spirit in this world. The soul is the Heavenly body that supports the functions of spirit elsewhere. Man is a trinity. As per Gen 1:26-27, man is made in the image and likeness of God, us, as it says in Gen 1:26. The image is a mirrored imaged, so God is also a trinity.
"The Bible CLEARLY says that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus.
John 10:30, " I and the Father are one."
"God is invisible. Jesus was visible."
Man is visible, so is his spirit. His soul is not.
"God is without begining and Jesus had a 'genesis', a birth, a beginning. "
John 8:58, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
"God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent. Jesus was/is a man and was repeated referred to, even referring to himself as 'son of man'."
It is true that He was a man. It is not true that all men lie, nor that all men are in need of repentance. See Gen 4. Enoch walked with God. Also, Noah was righteous.
"Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. "
Man is the image of the invisible God, per Gen 1:27. Man is the image of the trinity, per Gen 1:26 and Gen 3:22.
"God cannot be tempted with evil yet Jesus was tempted in all ways... "
God has a free will. What makes you think He can't be tempted? What makes you think temptation causes one to choose evil?
"If Jesus was God, then Jesus clearly promised that believers would do greater works than God because, he (Jesus) would go to his father."
? no comprende...
"If Jesus is God then who is the son of God? Jesus?)"
If Eagle eye is the soul of Eagle eye, then who is Eagle eye, Eagle eye?
John 1:1-2, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
In the beginning was Eagle eye, and Eagle eye was with his soul, and Eagle eye was his soul. He was with his soul in the beginning. Is Eagle eye the right hand man of his soul?
To support the idea of a three in one Godhead (Trinity) you have to use terms not found in the Bible, rely on false scripture, rely on twisted interpretations that contradict extremely clear scriptures and create a convoluted theory that no one really understands.....forcing it's adherents to declare it a mystery!
How people who ostensibly read their Bibles can believe this nonsense......is laughable!
Closer yet, He's gifted us with the indwelling o fthe Holy Spirit in every believer through faithin Christ.
Indeed. The volume of scriptures indicating that Jesus and God are separate entities, yet completely united that one must ignore in order to hold Rome's Trinity doctrine is daunting.
I'm sure the Arians, Nestorians, etc. made the same claim.
The fact that most Protestant organizations buy into this heresy is very curious.
I liken it to the environmental and leftist protestors who air their grievances about the US economic system over the internet, while talking on a cell, and eating a Big Mac.
It aooears from your posts that either you do not understand Scripture, the Trinity, or are attempting to understand it indepedent of the enabling ministry of God, the Holy Spirit.
Instead of arguing it or taking another man's view of it, take His Word for it and allow Him to guide you through understanding and an outward knowledge of His doctrines.
Persons, yes, one entity, one Diety, same essence.
The body was formed, the spirit was created, and man was made aliving soul with his first breath.
Soul is life. Spirit is what God is and gives and is invisible.
Man is the image of the invisible God, per Gen 1:27. Man is the image of the trinity, per Gen 1:26 and Gen 3:22.
2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospelof Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
As I said, Christ is the image of the invisible God. That doens't mean that Christ looks like God, but that Christ was a perfect representation of the invisible God.
Man was created in God's image when God placed his spirit in him but that doesn't mean that mankind looks like God because God is invisible....
If you use a bit more care in your usage of words you'll stay more Biblically accurate.
John 10:30, " I and the Father are one."
One how? One in purpose and indicating unity because just as he prayed for the apostles to be one...in purpose and in unity.
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;that they may be one, even as we are one,:
Rom 12:5 So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
1Cr 10:17 For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
1Cr 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ.
It is true that He was a man. It is not true that all men lie, nor that all men are in need of repentance. See Gen 4. Enoch walked with God. Also, Noah was righteous.
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Two things: God cannot lie and God is not a man. Jesus Christ is a man. God is not a man....Jesus is...Get it?
God has a free will. What makes you think He can't be tempted? What makes you think temptation causes one to choose evil?
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
If Jesus was God then his believers were greater than God in their works:
Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Now please reflect on what you've been taught, what you thought the Bible said, and what it really says.
God is NOT three, but one and there is but ONE GOD, not three.
I am quite happy to use the Bible to demolish trinitarian "logic" any time, any place.
Recognize this?
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God,
To believe this means that you have to reject clear scripture that says that Jesus was inferior to God, was a created being, and was a flesh and blood man.
They prefer the teachings of man over the wisdom of God.
Nevermind. God bless.
The doctrine of kenosis helps to discern the differences.
I've found our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus doesn't refer to Himself as God directly so as not to exalt His humanity, yet indubitably in John's Revelation He is surrounded by four 6-winged angels declaring Him as the one who was, who is and is to come. The seals are not able to be opened by any man, but the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David is able to break the seals (the Son). He describes Himself as the Alpha and Omega. Pretty hard to deny the Deity of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus from these passages. That doesn't mean Jesus is the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. Rather God reveals Himself to us in these threee person, yet they are each God and one.
Perhaps the criticisms of the Trinity reveal some past thinking independent of God which now bears out the sinner.
Good to see you agree the Holy Spirit is God.
11 [18] All power . . . me: the Greek word here translated power is the same as that found in the LXX translation of Daniel 7:13-14 where one "like a son of man" is given power and an everlasting kingdom by God. The risen Jesus here claims universal power, i.e., in heaven and on earth.
12 [19] Therefore: since universal power belongs to the risen Jesus (Matthew 28:18), he gives the eleven a mission that is universal. They are to make disciples of all nations. While all nations is understood by some scholars as referring only to all Gentiles, it is probable that it included the Jews as well. Baptizing them: baptism is the means of entrance into the community of the risen one, the Church. In the name of the Father . . . holy Spirit: this is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of trinitarian belief. It may have been the baptismal formula of Matthew's church, but primarily it designates the effect of baptism, the union of the one baptized with the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.
13 [20] All that I have commanded you: the moral teaching found in this gospel, preeminently that of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The commandments of Jesus are the standard of Christian conduct, not the Mosaic law as such, even though some of the Mosaic commandments have now been invested with the authority of Jesus. Behold, I am with you always: the promise of Jesus' real though invisible presence echoes the name Emmanuel given to him in the infancy narrative; see the note on Matthew 1:23. End of the age: see the notes on Matthew 13:39 and Matthew 24:3.
God is Holy and God is Spirit. God is the ultimate Holy Spirit.
HOWEVER.....
pneuma hagion (spirit holy) is the gift from God given on the day of Pentecost.
There are many usages for 'spirit' in the Bible, including unclean or unholy spirit.
Capitalization in the KJV is totally man made. In Germany they find it humerous that Americans believe in any kind of ghost, let alone a holy one!
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.