Skip to comments.Trinity Facts
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.
>> There is a great deal more proof,but what would the point be? <<
Exactly. What is your point?
There's a trustworthy foundation.
If anybody wonders about trinitarianism, simply study His Word through faith in Christ and let Him guide the believer, categorizing precisely how God reveals and describes His actions with respect to explicit names He has revealed in Scripture.
Such studies simply reveal is is revealed to us in three persons, all one God.
Are you advocating FOR a revision/re-write of Matt 28:19??
Are you advocating AGAINST a theological view of the Trinity??
You need to clarify what your "proof" is "proving"... please.
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.
Too bad that the everyday churchgoer doesn't realize the amount of poor interpretation and outright lies there are in the KJV and in most "Church" doctrine.
Worshipping the Trinity is hardly different that worshipping the Baalim.
"Affected," not "effected."
Your blunt assessment is hardly different from the prevailing opinon of some of the Pharisees...
Matthew 12:22-32 refers....
Fortunately, Christ left us with a Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Blunt? Yes, but very different.
The Pharisees judged by man's law.
As the article shows, the doctrine of the trinity isn't from the same God that fathered Jesus Christ.
The baalim fooled Isreal just as the trinity fools 'Christians'.
The very name "trinity" is anathema to monotheism.
There is one God and God is one, not three.
Believe what you want, I've learned to expect no more than that from people, they only believe what they want to believe.
Believe what you want, I've learned to expect no more than that from people, they only believe what they want to believe.
And some believe what they believe... as they have committed a lifetime of study, prayer and Biblical homework...
As I am sure you have done likewise....
The Pharisees were operating out of good theology...
They were just to proud of their own position and ambitions...
Some COULDN'T see Jesus...
Others WOULDN"T see Him...
have a good day....
KJV really has nothing to do with it ... every reputable translation includes the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28.
Further, even without it the doctrine of the Trinity is firmly established ... not by any isolated proof text, but by the overwhelming testimony of the whole of Scripture.
The truth is, you've got a Content-Free Sentence Generator, don't you! Did Jim Black sell it to you? I know he's got to have some whopped legal bills about now.
(Might amuse, Steve.)
The doctrine of the trininty has more holes than a collander at a shot gun range.
The Bible CLEARLY says that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus.
God is invisible. Jesus was visible.
God is without begining and Jesus had a 'genesis', a birth, a beginning.
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'.
Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God.
If Jesus was God, then Jesus clearly promised that believers would do greater works than God because, he (Jesus) would go to his father. (If Jesus is God then who is the son of God? Jesus?)
God cannot be tempted with evil yet Jesus was tempted in all ways...
So before you yahoos start in with your John 1:1 stuff, answer the CLEAR as written and in context words from the Bible.
IF.... you are interested in a thorough and objective expository catalog of Biblical concepts and Christian doctrine... but presented down here at the "every-man" level where even I can appreciate the scholarship...
I recommend -- simply as an exercise in your own investigation... this is a well-thought-out linear analysis... Agian, just a polite suggestion...
Foundations of Christian Doctrine
Kevin J Conner (& others)
That's a dishonest statement.
You really mean that if I want to believe what you believe, then I might have accomplished some sort of study.
One need not have academic credentials or an advanced intellect to see that God created the heavens and the Earth and it is that God who fathered the Lord Jesus Christ.
This Jesus Christ was born a baby and grew to be a man who lived a sinless life and was crucified as payment for our sins.
This same Jesus was in the tomb three days and three nights then raised from the dead by God his father who also raised him up to sit on His (God's) own right hand in glory who will one day return for his believers.
The Bible CLEARLY says that there is One God. Clearly.
It also says CLEARLY that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. Clearly.
Some of us don't need high-fallutin' commentaries to tell us what to think, we can clearly read the Bible.
Me? I'm not interested in 'learning' about the trininty any more than Jehu was interested in learning about the baalim.
But I notice that you didn't dare find fault with what I said even though you tried to mock it.
Gee, I wish this article had footnotes to show the sources.
I'd really like to see one of Eusebius' books that had a page 152. Or any page numbers for that matter.