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.
>> it must be assumed <<
Now, let's not go around making Assumptions! ;^D
"The father and I are one."
>> The volume of scriptures indicating that Jesus and God are separate entities, yet completely united <<
How can they be seperate if they are united? What you describe is the mystery of the trinity: that there are three persons, and yet one being.
I addressed that proof text in detail up thread.
Are husband and wife literally one? But they are to be 'one flesh' right?
Jesus simply stated that he and God his father were unified and he asked that just as he and God were unified, that his disciples would be one, too.
Jesus stated
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.
Clearly Jesus is saying the believers would do greater works than he did.
If Jesus was God, then he promised that believers would do greater works than God.
Howver, if Jesus is not God but the son of God, then that prayer could come true.
Also the Hebrew word for "One" in the SHAMA is "echad" which means "unity, altogether, togetherness". It likewise suggests a unity of several elements acting as one going one way or the other.
Thus the Hebrew SHAMA which reads thus: "Hear O Israel, the Lord [YHWH] our God [Elohiym] is one [echad] Lord"[Deut 6:4] actually testifies to the unity in plurality or plurality in unity of the God of Israel.
As far as the Triune nature of the God of Israel, Isaiah records: "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning, from the time it was there am I [Jesus], and now the Lord God [the Father] and His Spirit [the Holy Spirit] hath sent me." [Isaiah 48:16]
Isaiah again records: "The Spirit [Holy Spirit] of the Lord God [the Father] is upon me [Jesus]...". [Isaiah 61:1]
Also an interesting note: The primary root words of the Hebrew language are triune consonants: "malak, yadah, zarach, hadar......" --- three separate consonants [or letters]acting together to create a singular meaning: a trinitarian unity, so to speak. Thus the very character of the Hebrew words themselves testify to the "triune" nature of the God to Israel.
Yeah, I also read you plainly deny the divinity of Jesus. That was all I needed to read; if you are not a Christian, what's the point of debating Christian theology with you?
>> Are husband and wife literally one? But they are to be 'one flesh' right? <<
One what? One FLESH. Their flesh becomes one when they have sex. Literally.
>> Jesus simply stated that he and God his father were unified and he asked that just as he and God were unified, that his disciples would be one, too. <<
One what? One CHURCH. The Son and the Father are one what?
>> Clearly Jesus is saying the believers would do greater works than he did. If Jesus was God, then he promised that believers would do greater works than God. However, if Jesus is not God but the son of God, then that prayer could come true. <<
They shall do greater works than Jesus did in the flesh, because they shall become the body of Christ.
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
You say God is a plurality based on a name, yet the OT clearly states that despite implications of plurality, God is one.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
Even the New Teatament clearly states that God is one, not a plurality.
You'd better read Romans 10:9,10.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
There is nothing there that says one has to believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved. In fact it states that you have to confess (mind and heart as one) the LORD (not God) Jesus and to believe that God (not Jesus) raised him from the dead. (Do you really believe that God died? If you believe that Jesus is God you have to also believe that God died.)
One what? One FLESH. Their flesh becomes one when they have sex. Literally.
Literally they are separate entities, separate bodies, one penetrating the other. the use of "one" is to indicate unity not being identical.
They shall do greater works than Jesus did in the flesh, because they shall become the body of Christ.
So you're ok promulgating the doctrine that NT believers do greater works than God, is that right?
>> To believe this means that you have to reject clear scripture that says that Jesus was inferior to God, was a created being... <<
Where does scripture call Jesus a created being, inferior to God? You say "don't quote John 1." Why not? It is the philosophical treatise which is the foundation of the gospels! It says it perfectly:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh and lived among us."
In other words, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God, and Jesus became flesh and lived among us." Here is the crux of the mustery of trinity: that the Word was WITH God, yet the Word WAS God.
You say I can't use terms not found in the bible, such as "God, the Son." But that IS in the bible! "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."
The very phrase "begotten Son of God" is a denial of monotheism, unless the Son of God is also God himself. (We are sons of God through adoption, not through having been begotten.) That which is begotten is the same nature of that which begets. A dog begets a dog; a human begets a human. That which is begotten of a god is a god, or at least a demigod. But Jesus is begotten of God (even though he was not made). Hence, if God is a god, then Jesus is a god. Yet, if there can be only one god, then God and Jesus share the same divinity.
WE are NOT begotten of the Father; we are created. That which is created is less than that which creates, for it depends on its creator for existence; that which is begotten is the same as that which begets.
This is not philisophical deduction; it is merely defining what words mean. And yes, to say "begotten of the Father" does mean "sharing in the nature of the Father."
Niiiiiice.
God is One --- just as the SHAMA of Deuteronomy 6:4 testifies to. God is a plurality [trinity] acting in unity --- as One. The Hebrew word for God [Elohiym] is plural and we saw that plurality just as Isaiah prophesied. They were all there at Jesus' baptism with the Father, the Son [Jesus] and the Holy Spirit united in testimony and purpose and then throughout the New Testament.
Thank You ---
The above is a false statement.
It is true that God is one.
He reveals Himself in three persons.
Here is an example of how somebody might be revealed as two persons, but is the same. It is a philosophical lesson in identifying the issue of De Re vs De Dicto which had been studied by the RCC in some of its doctrines, although I haven't read the source studies. I believe they preceded Quine's studies on the term. Here it goes:
Bob and Susie were college newlyweds. Bob was pursuing his graduate degree, while Susie attended a few courses but remained in their small home most of the time supporting Bob. Bob would leave early in the morning for an 7am class and study till the wee hours of the morning. Susie frequently slept a little later and would then arise about 8 after Bob had left, and walk up a little lane to a coffee shop for a pastry and take in the dew and fresh sun.
Occasionally as Susie walked the lane, she encountered an elderly gent walking his dog, approaching her from the opposite direction and they would exchange pleasantries. One morning, as this familiar scene unfolded, Susie struck up a consversation about the dog and the morning and the gent introduced himself as Tom. Occasionally Tom and Susie would meet and discuss many things in life, but always from a polite and grandfather to granddaughter type perspective. Nothing was thought more about these simple encounters and both pursued their own lives.
Later Susie related to Bob about this wonderful old man she met with his cute dog and how they would discuss this or that, meanwhile, Bob, rather unamused, would simply listen to her. Susie claimed she thought Bob knew him, but Bob refused to acknowledge he ever knew such a man.
Later in the semester, Bob came home from his courses very frustrated and exclaimed, "That dirty Dr. Brown, what an #####**%, I spent 40 hours on this paper and he gives me a negative grade, ...I know this better than anybody else there, but they make buffoons out us as slaves, what a @$##**$" Susie, attempting to calm Bob down attempted to reassure him that maybe it wasn't that bad and besides, "How could anybody give out a negative grade?". Bob responded, "You know Dr. Brown, I've pointed him out to you, and you know how much he hates me from all the past grades he's given me,..they're never fair!". Susie responds, "I have no idea who Dr. Brown is and no I don't believe you've ever introduced us." Bob reacts, "Oh you know him, I know you do, you just don't admit it." Susie responds simply, "I don't know Dr. Brown!"
At this point, rather than argue, Susie decides to change the topic of discussion and encourages her husband to go with her to the bakery and get away from it all. It's a pleasant morning and he needed to get his mind off of school.
Half way up the lane, Bob and Susie meet the genteel old man walking his dog as he comes around the corner.
Susie beams up and "Hi, Tom!, I want you to meet my husband Bob!"
Tom looks angrily at the man, "Good morning Dr, Brown!", and stares at Susie and accuses, "You lied!"
I may not have done the topic justice, but it does raise an issue regarding the use of language, modality and logic. It might also be said that Dr. Brown and Tom were different persons, of the same man, not two different men. In another context, one might assert they are two different men, but but one person.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not ascribe three different Gods. It merely testifies how God is revealed in Scripture in three different persons, still one God. The mere fact that this is how God has chosen to reveal Himself to man, probably also reveals to us how He has created us and what is important in our relationship to Him.
He provides as the perfect example of man, the Son of God, both human and Divine. Through faith in Him, we are naturally drawn as reborn men, to a preoccupation of how our Lord and Savior thinks, decides, and acts with respect to the other two persons of the Godhead, still one God.
If one is preoccupied with confusing the doctrine of the Trinity with thinking of three gods, then one is thinking similar to Bob thinking Susie was a liar when she asserted she didn't know Dr. Brown.
One God, three persons.
>> Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus <<
Just what is it that you think you are supposed to confess ABOUT Jesus? That he was some guy? Even Josephus, Marx, Hitler, and Stalin confessed that much. But you are denying the Lord Jesus, making him ONLY a man! You should know that Paul wrote to the Greeks, and that the Greek bible used the word, "Lord" to mean "YHWH."
>> Literally they are separate entities, separate bodies, one penetrating the other. the use of "one" is to indicate unity not being identical <<
Is my hand identical to my foot? Of course not! They are part of me, though, and I am one. A woman and a man become part of the same body. This is not mere poetry! Ask an immunologist! Ask an obstetrician!
>> So you're ok promulgating the doctrine that NT believers do greater works than God, is that right? <<
Of course not! Jesus conquered sin and death. Even you believe that, right? No human will do something greater than conquering sin and death. So, obviously, you are misusing that quote.
Uh oh, looks like if the Father answered Jesus' prayer posted below the trinity went from 3 to about a billion.
" Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one."
For the physicists out there, light is a particle, a ray and a wave. How can a particle be a wave? How can a wave be a ray? How can a ray be a particle? We cannot comprehend such things, and yet they are experimentally proven to be true. Light has three natures, and yet is one.
Likewise, God is Father, Son and Spirit. He has three persons and is one.
The trinitarian nature of light also helps us understand the dual nature of Jesus. Eagle eye: How can Christians do greater works than God? They do not. But they will do greater works than Jesus, and Jesus is God. How is that possible?
Look at your microwave oven's door. You will see there is a screen embedded in the glass. It is there because the microwaves are too large to fit through the screen in their wave nature. Yet how big is a photon? It is infinitessimally small. The particle nature of microwave energy is small enough to pass between the Hydrogen and Oxygen in a water molecule, yet the wave nature cannot pass through the holes in a microwave screen.
Christians will do works greater than the human nature of Jesus, but they cannot do works greater than the divine nature of Jesus, since through the divine nature of Jesus, all that is came into being.
Word games using Elohim and Echad found here:
http://www.torahofmessiah.com/elohim.html
Uh Oh, looks like someone isn't paying attention to verb tenses:
"That they shall be one"
"Ye shall be gods."
what part of "so that they shall be ONE as we are ONE. don't you understand?
Eagle Eye--"So you're ok promulgating the doctrine that NT believers do greater works than God, is that right?"
All works which are called good by God's standards only happen through faith in Christ. There are many good works performed by men independently of God, but will amount to being good for nothingness by Divine standards when judged eternally. They are also parlayed into evil by the Adversary in an attempt to counterfeit Paradise independently of God here on earth.
Faith upon faith, ...even greater works than what was performed by our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus, while He was here in the first Advent, shall be done by believers in this mystery Church Age. They are indeed ascribed to the believer who performs the good work by volitional responsibility, but they are also only possible through the indwelling of God in the believer. Since the believer's volition is involved, he is also responsible for the work.
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.