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.
Actually, "Wisdom," as referred to in Proverbs, has been traditionally identified as the Holy Spirt. Nonetheless, that fact does not affect any arguments here, since proving it merely through scripture is unlikely, and the truth of that assertion is irrelevant; what matters is only the fact that there is no proof that Wisdom is not a person, and so the fact that a thesis inplies that Wisdom is a person does not negate the render the thesis in valid.
>> Can you find a scripture that says The Spirit has a body, eyes, mouth, ears??? <<
You misunderstand what a "person" is. You may be surprised to know that corporations (such as IBM) are persons, and as such, are afforded due-process and other considerations under the U.S. Constitution, for instance.
>> The Spirit can be grieved....so it must be a person. [Acts 7:51] But, does giving human like qualities to something make it a person? <<
Yes, actually, ascribing reason to something does make it a person, for instance. Relevant definitions of a person include:
"A self-conscious or rational being." (Animals are not known to be self-conscious; they may weep, or be sad, but "grieving" implies self-consciousness.)
"An entity recognized by law as having rights and duties."
"An individual of specified character: a person of importance."
From Latin, "persona," meaning "mask," "role," or "appearance." Hence, one being may, in fact, have three personae, in that they may play three roles, have three appearances, or don three masks.
In Greek, however, the concept represented in Catholic theology by "person" is "hypostasis": "the underlying or essential part of anything as distinguished from attributes; substance, essence, or essential principle."
As such, the three persons of the trinity aren't merely three "masks" or three "roles," but three fundamentally discreet realities; God the Father doesn't shift shift modalities to become God the Son; they are both eternal, and with discreet, essential and eternal characteristics.
>> It is not possible for one to confess that Jesus came in the flesh if one actually believes that Jesus is God/also God/Divine/God the Son/man-god, etc. <<
On what basis do you make this assertion?
>> As I said much earlier, trinity = baalim. <<
Yes, you have made this odd assertion before, and never explained it.
And what bible and tradition have you been fooled by? the modalistic monarchian tradition that Tertullian dismantled in his writings.
How does your bible quote Matthew 28:19. Since you don't like the KJV, here is Young's Literal Translation that some here like:
" having gone, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".
Does your bible identify three persons in that verse or not? Quote that verse from your bible and let's see how reliable your bible is?
Go to the back of Youngs or Strongs and it shows verses that have been altered or added to the texts as well as other known corruptions to the text.
Also look at an interlinear and you'll see how the KJV took some liberties with the Stephens text.
I don't rely on commentaries and church literature. I prefer to use various common research texts that don't require a formal education in ancient languages.
Then there are commonly accepted principles for research and interpretation such as most scripture is correct, clear, and to the point. Then one must consider both immediate and remote context. Then one should interpret difficult or unclear verses in light of the many clear ones and not vice versa. Don't forget that the Bible was written in an ancient eastern culture and some of their notions don't translate well. (salting and swaddling, standing at the gate and calling, covanents, etc) Also don't forget that there are many, many figures of speech to emphasize important ideas (polysyndaton, asyndaton, hendiady, hypocatastasis, etc.)
But you have to really want to learn the truth instead of rely on tradition.
And over the years I've met very few who have the courage to do that.
The fact that I have to explain it means that you don't know enough to understand it.
In times like these I yearn for a modern Jehu.
Well then there has to be some translation around that didn't take liberties with the text, right? Then tell us just what bible does have Matthew 28:19 translated accurately.
>> The fact that I have to explain it means that you don't know enough to understand it. <<
Knock off the condescension; given your misunderstandings of the words, "mystery," "person," and "trinity," you're in a laughable position to claim to hold knowledge above ordinary comprehension.
Care to offer a single way in which the trinity is akin to Baalim, or do you just like to blaspheme for sport?
>> And over the years I've met very few who have the courage to do that. <<
Extreme arrogance is a form of cowardice.
Both are counterfeit religions that look very close to the real thing, both involve pluralist gods, both properly require the definite article "the" as in the trinity and the baalim.
Regarding extreme arrogance being a form of cowardice, I wouldn't know, and, again, I'm not sure you can validate your claim.
>> Both are counterfeit religions that look very close to the real thing, both involve pluralist gods, both properly require the definite article "the" as in the trinity and the baalim. <<
That's IT? You call the trinity "baalim" just based on THAT? I presumed there was some deeper connection you were drawing. YOu should take far greater care in your blaspheming.
LOL...I guess your worship of a counterfeit pagan system doesn't bother you as long as I've only pointed out a handful of points, eh?
Since you can't even see when your own words are directly contrary to the Bible I see no sense in getting any deeper with you.
Your fundamentals are too weak to get into advanced topics.
The words (Let Us) are AIT, Assisted In Translation; They do not acure in the actual text. I have no problem with words AIT, unless they change the meaning of something.
I think the Jews know their own language well enough that they don't need any assistance from anyone else. The meaning of the Hebrew is "let us".
What text version are you reading from. All of the bible that I have also say (Let us), however it is not in the original HEBREW TEXT. Are you reading from a SEPTUGENT version.
What text version are you reading from. All of the bible that I have also say (Let us), however it is not in the original HEBREW TEXT. Are you reading from a SEPTUGENT version.
Your assertion simply isn't borne out by other usages. What you're wanting us to believe is that this is the correct translation here when it isn't translated like that anywhere else. One way to gain an understanding of a word or phrase is to study their uses and usages. Unique English translations are red flags.
For another example of AIT, look at the italicized words, especially in I cor 12:1
1Cr 12:1 ¶ Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
In the typical KJV Bible the word "gifts" is italicized because it is supplied by the translators. In this case the word 'gifts' is improperly supplied and twists the whole subject in chapters 12, 13, and 14.
The word 'pneumatikos' should be translated 'matters of the spirit' or 'spiritual matters' and then we could drop a whole lot of other problems such as having the so called gift of prophesy, or tongues, or wisdom, etc.
Bottom line and point is that there are many quirks in the common KJV or RSV that have given rise to twisted theology.
You said my: assertion simply isn't borne out by other usages. What you're wanting us to believe is that this is the correct translation here when it isn't translated like that anywhere else. One way to gain an understanding of a word or phrase is to study their uses and usages. Unique English translations are red flags.******This info that I am referring to, comes from the NIV exustive concordence; and that is all I have to say about the matter. Go ahead and have the last word.
For some reason my post are coming out in different places then from were I posted. Ohhhh Welll.
Dude! It's Hebrew and the Jews read Hebrew. It's the Hebrew Scripture, it belongs to them, and it's in their language. When they say it says, "let us". I believe them!
"For another example of AIT, look at the italicized words, especially in I cor 12:1 1Cr 12:1 ¶ Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant."
Rubbish! There is no Hebrew NT! Get a clue. The NT is in Koine Greek.
It is in any and all of the original Hebrew text. I posted the Hebrew in #111, and gave the Jews own translation of it. I also posted a link on the thread. Here it is again.
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.