Trinity Facts

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.

Any believer through faith in Christ may return to Him through 1 John 1:9 and remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, thereby allowing the Holy Spirit to perform His teaching ministry.

[1 John 1:3] That which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

This would have been an excellent time for John to include the Holy Spirit if the triune concept of a God head was being taught by the Apostles.

The best I've seen from the non-Trinitarians are some Old Testament verses and claims that the Bible was translated in a corrupt fashion or revised at a later point, not with a shred of proof of course.

Pul-eeze!

Not even a nod to Timothy and Galations?

John 1 isn't all that big a bugaboo but it requires some mastery of FUNDAMENTAL research and interpretation skills that 95% of those on this thread have demonstrated that they lack.

The mere fact that someone leads off with John 1 shows that they are willing to build or support doctrine based on one scripture and ignore dozens of clearly written contradictory scriptures.

Priests of God and of Christ, but not the Holy Spirit? I guess the Trinitarians look at the glass as 2/3 full.

You know....they are just deluded into following this 1700 year old heresy that has absolutely no foundation in scripture. You can simply shake your head and wonder why. I really cannot comprehend how seemingly intelligent people can fall for this goofy doctrine.

It is right out of Babylon!

**God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.**

As someone as already pointed out, those phrases are not found in the Bible.

Why would the Son of God have to ask the Father to send twelve legions of angels if he, as the Son, has his own separate, yet equal power to the Father?

Simple. As the Son of God, any miraculous happening was the Father(Spirit; John 4:23,24) in him doing the works, telling him what to say and do when the matter was spiritual.

The man Christ Jesus said, "I, of myself can do nothing", or "I thirst". That wasn't God talking in those instances.

Jesus Christ(fleshly man with a soul) knew AND felt the presense of the Father(Spirit) in him right up to the cross. Then the Father(Spirit) left, and Jesus cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" At that moment, the Christ knew that the Father had departed from him. How strange that must have felt. Then the moment of death. Diety can NOT die. The Son died. Jesus had said he had power IN himself to lay his life down and take it back up. That power was the Father in him.

"Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell..". Acts 2:27
"Him hath God raised up.." Acts 10:40

The Christ is the focal point, the heir of all things. He who has had all things from the beginning, is not an heir but the original owner.

All power has been GIVEN Jesus Christ by the Father(Spirit) in him.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself".

It's the revelation of Jesus Christ. Who he REALLY is!
"..The blessed and ONLY Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting, Amen." 1Tim. 6:15,16

>> There are other words that describe believing what makes no sense and contradicts the Bible <<

You are the one who contradicts the bible. To the trinitarian, there is no contradiction. Jesus is both God and Man. God exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Accept these propositions, and the bible makes sense. Deny them, and you end up having to ignore, as you do, key portions of the bible, such as John's Doxology.

>> God is in Christ. And Christ is in the believer. Doesn't that make the believer God, too? <<

No. The paper is in the folder; the folder is in the briefcase. That doesn't mean that the briefcase is the paper. But the bible doesn't say God is IN Jesus. It says Jesus is God.

>> In the New Testament, the word 'mystery' has specific meaning and refers to something very special and it isn't 3 n 1 or anything like that <<

Yes, it does refer to something Paul says IS known. "or I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." or "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," or "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:"

>> In the New Testament, the word 'mystery' has specific meaning and refers to something very special and it isn't 3 n 1 or anything like that. <<

Oh? How's this: "And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" So, all things were made by Jesus. Hence, Jesus is not merely the man born of Mary, but predated all things. Do you know what you call one who creates all things? Who is eternal? You call such a being a god.

However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit."

But here is Isaiah 61:1 from Young's Literal Translation:

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah [is] on me, Because Jehovah did anoint me To proclaim tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives liberty, And to bound ones an opening of bands. . . . ".

Jesus reads this passage from Isaiah after his Baptism by John [and in the wilderness] at which the Father and the Holy Spirit were present, indicating that Jesus is the "me" here.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah [is] on me, Because Jehovah did anoint me To proclaim tidings to the humble,

Also from Young's; [John 4;21-24] 21 Jesus saith to her, `Woman, believe me, that there doth come an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father; 22 ye worship what ye have not known; we worship what we have known, because the salvation is of the Jews 23 but, there cometh an hour, and it now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also doth seek such to worship him;; 24 God [is] a Spirit, and those worshiping Him, in spirit and truth it doth behove to worship.

[John 10:30] I and the Father are one."

But the bible doesn't say God is IN Jesus.

And I didn't say that God was in Jesus, I said God was in Christ.

That's a slick little deceptive trick!

But once again you are simply wrong on what the Bible says or doesn't say.

Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

2Cr 12:19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but [we do] all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.

Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Phl 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

It says Jesus is God.

Chapter and verse please.

Jesus is both God and Man.

Chapter and verse please.

God exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Again, chapter and verse please.

You have shown a solid tendency to make unsupported claims and claims without reference as I have done above, and I know why.

There is no verse that says "God the Son", "Trininty", "God the Holy Spirit", "Jesus is God", etc.

Nothing at all. That's why you can't use the Bible to support those claims and you never will.

"the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also doth seek such to worship him; God [is] a Spirit, and those worshiping Him, in spirit and truth it doth behove to worship."

So what are you trying to conclude from this?

There is a big difference between the word "a" and the word "the" especially when the word "Holy" is added to it. The words "the Holy Spirit" identify a particular spirit. It is a proper name for a specific spirit.

Even Isaiah recognized that with the use of the word "the" in front of "Spirit". Not just any spirit, or a spirit, but "the Spirit of the Lord God", and Jesus then tells us more regarding his name with the addition of the word: "Holy". His name is "the Holy Spirit".

Who did Jesus send to his apostles when he ascended and sat down next to His Father?

Who did Jesus send to his apostles when he ascended and sat down next to His Father?

Not a who but a what.

What? Holy spirit. Spirit that is holy. pneuma hagion

Holy spirit was sent. No definate article in the Greek. The definate article "the" was added in translation to substantiate faulty theology.

Don't believe me? just look at any interlinear or concordance.

Do the research. Look in an interlinear and Stong's or Young's. I have.

Once you see that the Greek texts don't often support some of the common theology you might revise your beliefs.

That takes a lot of work, humility, courage, and a sincere desire to know the truth. Most people aren't courageous enough to accept challenges to their religious beliefs.

Ever been told to tithe? Ever tried to find the word "tithe" in the New Testament since Pentacost?

Been baptized? Water or spirit? Hmmmmm....Ephesians says that there is one baptism. Which is it?

The list goes on and on...tradition or truth...?

>> But the bible doesn't say God is IN Jesus. And I didn't say that God was in Jesus, I said God was in Christ. That's a slick little deceptive trick! But once again you are simply wrong on what the Bible says or doesn't say. Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 2Cr 12:19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but [we do] all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying. Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. Phl 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. <<

I could have specified, "doesn't MERELY say God is IN Jesus." Given the context, however, you sure make a big fuss out of nothing.

>> Chapter and verse please... Chapter and verse please... Again, chapter and verse please. <<

>> You have shown a solid tendency to make unsupported claims and claims without reference as I have done above, and I know why. <<

Yeah, because I already did. I don't feel like typing the same stuff over and over again every time I refer to it. For now, your only response is to complain that I didn't rehash the entire argument from scratch every time?

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.