Trinitarism Facts.

[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 theTeaching, (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 Matthew28:19: "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.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

For those who dont know this, Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is now the Pope.

[Forest]

For those who dont know this, Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is now the Pope.

Are you saying there is no trinity, or that baptism should be in the "name of Jesus" and not in the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Are you saying there is no trinity, or that baptism should be in the "name of Jesus" and not in the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"? Scripture was changed to support the trinitarism doctrine of the Catholic church. It was not a original teaching of the disciples. All of the places in our bibles that support the the ideal that God is three persons was added by the Catholic church.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

The info I posted here is less than half of what I have, in regards to the trinity doctrine.

[HypnoToad]

"All" Scripture that supports the Trinity was added?? That's a large volume of Scripture.

Outside of Matthew's baptism formula, and the Johannine Comma, what else was added?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

"All" Scripture that supports the Trinity was added?? That's a large volume of Scripture.

Outside of Matthew's baptism formula, and the Johannine Comma, what else was added? The words (Hell) was also added in place of (grave). The concept of hell is part of the pagan religion. Hell is not part of Judeaism or the original teaching of the disciples. The word (Apostle) was added in place of disciple. A apostle was a messenger of Apollyon, a apostle mouth, a person who speaks the language of the serpent. The placeses in the bible that say God is evil or does evil, they were translated that way for secret societies who believe in dualism. That is, God is both Good and evil. Thats about it, the other things are not worth mentioning. Oh, and then there was Joseph Smith who introduced the book of Mormon. He was a Mason. Oh, and verse 9 of the book of Jude was added by the Catholic church. That should keep you busy.

[Forest]

To reject the divinity of Jesus, you have to reject the Gospel of John.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I would like to state, that believing God is three persons in one being, would not prevent your election to life. The reason for this post, is so that you may know the truth, and that you may worship God in truth. Jesus (Yahshua) is Gods salvation, he was born into this world to fulfill prophecy, and to reconcile man to God.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

To reject the divinity of Jesus, you have to reject the Gospel of John. I believe that tampering with scripture is a terrible sin; it causes Gods holy name to be blasphemed, God is a spirit and he is the Holy Spirit. Having more than one name does not make anyone more than one person.

[sandman]

To reject the divinity of Jesus, you have to reject the Gospel of John.
Why would that be?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I do believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, but I also know that men can do evil: N.I.V. Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

[Spiritofprophecy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

Good points and true.

Believe not doctrines not first taught by Jesus or his disciples.

God bless C.F. and all who use it.

[RefrusRevlis]

Scripture was changed to support the trinitarism doctrine of the Catholic church. It was not a original teaching of the disciples. All of the places in our bibles that support the the ideal that God is three persons was added by the Catholic church.


Hmm, you seem to regard the theories and opinions of men in high esteem. The opinions that the scriptures were tampered with are not able to be substantiated and in fact deceptive, they are based on hearsay.

Question: How many extant Greek manuscripts omit the verse in its traditional form.

Answer: NONE.

The Greek manuscript evidence is fully behind the verse.

Any other considerations are secondary.

To say every single Greek manuscript has been tampered with is just ridiculous and unprovable.

It takes a person who wants to avoid the ramifications of the verse to feel the need to come up with such objections.

Consider the evidence: the Greek manuscripts.
Ignore the hearsay: the testimony of some modern "scholars" and textual critics and those who want to further their own unscriptural doctrines.

The fact these words are found nowhere else in the scriptures is neither here nor there.

Also the phrase is not a baptismal formula as some try to make out, it is merely stating by whose authority the thing is to be done. The Father Son and Holy Spirit work together.

Refrus

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Hmm, you seem to regard the theories and opinions of men in high esteem. The opinions that the scriptures were tampered with are not able to be substantiated and in fact deceptive, they are based on hearsay.

Question: How many extant Greek manuscripts omit the verse in its traditional form.

Answer: NONE.

The Greek manuscript evidence is fully behind the verse.

Any other considerations are secondary.

To say every single Greek manuscript has been tampered with is just ridiculous and unprovable.

It takes a person who wants to avoid the ramifications of the verse to feel the need to come up with such objections.

Consider the evidence: the Greek manuscripts.
Ignore the hearsay: the testimony of some modern "scholars" and textual critics and those who want to further their own unscriptural doctrines.

The fact these words are found nowhere else in the scriptures is neither here nor there.

Also the phrase is not a baptismal formula as some try to make out, it is merely stating by whose authority the thing is to be done. The Father Son and Holy Spirit work together.

Refrus I presume that you are not useing any study bibles with foot notes, or any exhaustive concordances. Also that you dont believe:N.I.V. Jeremiah 8:8" 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely? If you want to know what the truth is, you have to be prepared to dig deep. And dont be satisfied with the first answer you get. I use different concordances and bibles, and if I find any note worthy problems, I look into it. If a person has more than one name, that does not make them more than one person.

[RefrusRevlis]

I presume that you are not useing any study bibles with foot notes, or any exhaustive concordances. Also that you dont believe:N.I.V. Jeremiah 8:8" 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely? If you want to know what the truth is, you have to be prepared to dig deep. And dont be satisfied with the first answer you get. I use different concordances and bibles, and if I find any note worthy problems, I look into it. If a person has more than one name, that does not make them more than one person.
You need to answer my points or give up. Your post makes no sense at all. It pretty clear cut, the Greek manuscripts support the reading in Matthew 28:19. end of story. You can quote any number of "experts" who have theories (Ploughman or whoever), but the evidence is against you: every old Greek manuscript has the form of words found in modern Bibles. And by the way, my library is very well stocked.
Refrus

[HypnoToad]

The words (Hell) was also added in place of (grave). The concept of hell is part of the pagan religion. Hell is not part of Judeaism or the original teaching of the disciples. The word (Apostle) was added in place of disciple. A apostle was a messenger of Apollyon, a apostle mouth, a person who speaks the language of the serpent. The placeses in the bible that say God is evil or does evil, they were translated that way for secret societies who believe in dualism. That is, God is both Good and evil. Thats about it, the other things are not worth mentioning. Oh, and then there was Joseph Smith who introduced the book of Mormon. He was a Mason. Oh, and verse 9 of the book of Jude was added by the Catholic church. That should keep you busy.
First, I'm not Mormon, so Joseph Smith is irrelevant.

Further, I'm asking about the Trinity, not all this other stuff. You said everything that supports the Trinity was added. What passages that support the Trinity were added, other than Matt's baptism formula and the Johannine Comma?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

First, I'm not Mormon, so Joseph Smith is irrelevant.

Further, I'm asking about the Trinity, not all this other stuff. You said everything that supports the Trinity was added. What passages that support the Trinity were added, other than Matt's baptism formula and the Johannine Comma? Well, let's start with Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Those words (LET US) are not in the original script, but are AIT (Assisted In Translation) In other words, in our bibles, but not in actual scripture.

[sandman]

First, I'm not Mormon, so Joseph Smith is irrelevant.

Further, I'm asking about the Trinity, not all this other stuff. You said everything that supports the Trinity was added. What passages that support the Trinity were added, other than Matt's baptism formula and the Johannine Comma?
He're one
The words in red do not appear in any early MSS

I John 5:

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Well, let's start with Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Those words (LET US) are not in the original script, but are AIT (Assisted In Translation) In other words, in our bibles, but not in actual scripture.
And then there is Isaiah 9:6: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. It's out of order, this is how it shoud read: Isaish 9:6. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, leading in Peace. For the NIV all of the refernce #8569 should read: leader, leaders and leading.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Without going into a lot of detail, Jesus never said "I am." If you compare other verses to the same question he said: "Yes" or "you said it."

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

And where Jesus said: "the father and I are one." that can also be translated to mean "United." I also would like to state that we are also called be be "one" with the Father, according to scripture.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

You need to answer my points or give up. Your post makes no sense at all. It pretty clear cut, the Greek manuscripts support the reading in Matthew 28:19. end of story. You can quote any number of "experts" who have theories (Ploughman or whoever), but the evidence is against you: every old Greek manuscript has the form of words found in modern Bibles. And by the way, my library is very well stocked.
Refrus This is a matter of historical FACT and not someones OPINION. > 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 Matthew28:19: "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. This is a fact not an opinion.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

King James Version: Revelation 1:11. Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. This part here that fallows is not in scripture and is excluded from other bibles. > "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," And the list go,s on and on.

[RefrusRevlis]

This is a matter of historical FACT and not someones OPINION. > 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.

Well, I'm not surprised that Ratzinger attributes the reading in Matthew 28:19 to Rome, given the fact that Catholic tradition and the authority of the church are given equal if not more importance than the scriptures in the Catholic Church. You talk of evidence yet you present theories. Ratzinger's opinion is just that, his opinion.

"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 Matthew28:19: "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. This is a fact not an opinion

Your statement "Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words" is not necessarily true, consider this quote:



Go disciple ye all the nations in my name," can not be taken as decisive proof that the clause "Baptizing...Spirit" was lacking in copies known to Eusebius, because "in my name" may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever reason, the following clause. "(The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; S. Driver, A. Plummer, C. Briggs; A Critical & Exegetical Commentary of St. Matthew Third Edition, 1912, pages 307-308).



In all fairness, the previous quote goes on to say, ""On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel..."The possibility that it was a paraphrase is also thus presented. The previous two quotes are another person's suppositions, we could go on and on quoting the suppositions of various people ad nauseum.


The evidence from the manuscripts is of first importance... THEY ALL HAVE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

The evidence of the ancient versions is of secondary importance ...ALL EXTANT VERSIONS THAT HAVE THE PASSAGE INCLUDE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

Then we come to sources of tertiary importance, the Ancient Fathers, this is where Eusebius fits in. You are pitting him against the first two sources, when it is not even proiven Eusebius meant to quote Matthew 28:19 verbatim.

Around 200 years before Eusebius Ignatius (died around 110AD) said this in his letter to the Philippians:


There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,”
You need to separate historical fact and supposition. Fact: all manuscripts of the NT have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.
Fact: all ancient Versions (in other languages to Greek) have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.

It may be a fact that someone once said "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries ...etc", but it is not a fact that the statement that person made is actually true, you need to separate opinion from evidence.
Refrus

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Well, I'm not surprised that Ratzinger attributes the reading in Matthew 28:19 to Rome, given the fact that Catholic tradition and the authority of the church are given equal if not more importance than the scriptures in the Catholic Church. You talk of evidence yet you present theories. Ratzinger's opinion is just that, his opinion.



Your statement "Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words" is not necessarily true, consider this quote:







In all fairness, the previous quote goes on to say, ""On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel..."The possibility that it was a paraphrase is also thus presented. The previous two quotes are another person's suppositions, we could go on and on quoting the suppositions of various people ad nauseum.


The evidence from the manuscripts is of first importance... THEY ALL HAVE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

The evidence of the ancient versions is of secondary importance ...ALL EXTANT VERSIONS THAT HAVE THE PASSAGE INCLUDE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

Then we come to sources of tertiary importance, the Ancient Fathers, this is where Eusebius fits in. You are pitting him against the first two sources, when it is not even proiven Eusebius meant to quote Matthew 28:19 verbatim.

Around 200 years before Eusebius Ignatius (died around 110AD) said this in his letter to the Philippians:


You need to separate historical fact and supposition. Fact: all manuscripts of the NT have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.
Fact: all ancient Versions (in other languages to Greek) have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.

It may be a fact that someone once said "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries ...etc", but it is not a fact that the statement that person made is actually true, you need to separate opinion from evidence.
Refrus <<<< Your Opinion<

[DarkNLovely]

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 theTeaching, (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 Matthew28:19: "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.
The Catholic Church? What about the Orthodox Church that came before them?

I would encourage everyone to study the Council of Nicea.

[HypnoToad]

Well, let's start with Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Those words (LET US) are not in the original script, but are AIT (Assisted In Translation) In other words, in our bibles, but not in actual scripture.
Where are you getting this info from? I've looked at several interlinears, and the Hebrew is always "let us make" (or "we shall make"). The plural verb is never missing from the Hebrew as you suggest. Perhaps you are confused because although it's three words in English, in Hebrew it's just one word.

He're one
The words in red do not appear in any early MSS

I John 5:

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Yesterday 04:23 PM
Yeah, that's the Johanine Comma which I already mentioned.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Where are you getting this info from? I've looked at several interlinears, and the Hebrew is always "let us make" (or "we shall make"). The plural verb is never missing from the Hebrew as you suggest. Perhaps you are confused because although it's three words in English, in Hebrew it's just one word.


Yeah, that's the Johanine Comma which I already mentioned. If you dont have a NIV Exhaustive Concordance then there is nothing more to talk about.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

The Catholic Church? What about the Orthodox Church that came before them?

I would encourage everyone to study the Council of Nicea.

I never heard of the church of Ortho or about there dox.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I never heard of the church of Ortho or about there dox. There was religious strife between the Arian, Catholic and Orthodox factions. The Arians were mainly Judeao Christians. And the others, well :scratch:

[DarkNLovely]

I never heard of the church of Ortho or about there dox.
You may want to correct that before you make such judgments about the Catholic origin of the Trinity

[EmperorConstantine]

You may want to correct that before you make such judgments about the Catholic origin of the Trinity
For serious. And to think that maybe there would be some who would put that historical Protestant hate towards Roman Catholics and anything similar to, behind them and actually do as Christ said and forgive while at the same time not making fanatical statements just because of a 500 year-old grudge.

But I digress.:)

[oldsage]

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."

I haven't yet looked up most of the references yet, but I did go and look up what the ISBE had to day on this subject. This quotation would have one believe it is supporting just the view quoted above which is not the case.

III. Difficulties.

1. Are Matthew 28:18-20 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Mat 28:18 - 20')) and Mark 16:15 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Mar 16:15')),16 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Mar 16:16')) Genuine?:
Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f) argue that the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Mat 28:19')) is spurious, and that the text in Mk belongs to a section which was added to this Gospel at a later time. The former claim had first been advanced by Conybeare, but later research by Riggenbach has established the genuineness of the Trinitarian formula in Mt. Feine still maintains his doubts, however, on subjective grounds.(ISBE - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915, 1st Edition, from Dr. Stanley Morris, IBT, 1997. Original unabridged edition. James Orr, M.A., D.D. General Editor. John L. Nuelsen, D.D., LL.D. Edgar Y. Mullins, D.D., LL.D. Assistant Editors. Morris O. Evans, D.D., PhD. Managing Editor. (Melvin Grove Kyle, D.D., JJ.D. Revising Editor. Revision published in 1939 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.))

A lot of times quote such as these are taken out of context or really don't exist.

Now, when looking at the OP quote for the ISBE I looked for that text, it isn't under Baptism but under Sacraments.

Here is the whole section:

3. Institution by Christ:
The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord's Supper owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite appointment by Christ Himself, has been strongly challenged by some modern critics.
(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16:15 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Mar%2016:15')) f occurs in a passage (16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28:19 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Mat%2028:19')), standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 28:19 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Mat%2028:19')) in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula "foreign to the mouth of Jesus" (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:38 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Act%202:38')),41 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Act%202:41')), et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Rom 6:3 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Rom%206:3')) ff; 1 Cor 12:13 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_1Co%2012:13')); Eph 4:5 (http://www.christianforums.com/BwRef('KJV_Eph%204:5'))). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle's earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.

Most of the quotes more than likely are not supporting the lack of the Trinitarian formula but speaking about the critics and we are only getting the part which they are quoting and not the rebuttals.

Chris

[oldsage]

Well, let's start with Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Those words (LET US) are not in the original script, but are AIT (Assisted In Translation) In other words, in our bibles, but not in actual scripture.
Pulling out and reading my Hebrew bible the verb is plural.

Chris

[oldsage]

It's out of order, this is how it shoud read: Isaish 9:6. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, leading in Peace. For the NIV all of the refernce #8569 should read: leader, leaders and leading.

You should learn the language and not read some reference number. It can be leader or prince, but it can't be leading because the hebrew word in question is a noun not a verb (participal)

Chris

[oldsage]

Without going into a lot of detail, Jesus never said "I am." If you compare other verses to the same question he said: "Yes" or "you said it."


I have read "ego eimi" from Jesus quotes.

Chris

[oldsage]

Well, I'm not surprised that Ratzinger attributes the reading in Matthew 28:19 to Rome, given the fact that Catholic tradition and the authority of the church are given equal if not more importance than the scriptures in the Catholic Church. You talk of evidence yet you present theories. Ratzinger's opinion is just that, his opinion.



Your statement "Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words" is not necessarily true, consider this quote:








In all fairness, the previous quote goes on to say, ""On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel..."The possibility that it was a paraphrase is also thus presented. The previous two quotes are another person's suppositions, we could go on and on quoting the suppositions of various people ad nauseum.


The evidence from the manuscripts is of first importance... THEY ALL HAVE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

The evidence of the ancient versions is of secondary importance ...ALL EXTANT VERSIONS THAT HAVE THE PASSAGE INCLUDE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

Then we come to sources of tertiary importance, the Ancient Fathers, this is where Eusebius fits in. You are pitting him against the first two sources, when it is not even proiven Eusebius meant to quote Matthew 28:19 verbatim.

Around 200 years before Eusebius Ignatius (died around 110AD) said this in his letter to the Philippians:


You need to separate historical fact and supposition. Fact: all manuscripts of the NT have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.
Fact: all ancient Versions (in other languages to Greek) have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.

It may be a fact that someone once said "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries ...etc", but it is not a fact that the statement that person made is actually true, you need to separate opinion from evidence.
Refrus
I agree with this assessment.

Chris

[oldsage]

<<<< Your Opinion<
His was based on known facts yours is on hearsay.

We need the evidence not someone's idea about what they think someone else says. Especially when the person who said the quote didn't explain it more.

How do you explain ALL the manuscript evidence?
Chris

[oldsage]

If you dont have a NIV Exhaustive Concordance then there is nothing more to talk about.
what does a concordance have to do with anything?

I have many different language text and resources. I think it is better suited for research than some concordance.

Chris

[disasm]

If you dont have a NIV Exhaustive Concordance then there is nothing more to talk about.
You are joking right? You're saying Catholics perverted scripture, and then you say unless we have a NIV bible with a concordance there is nothing more to say... Have you ever looked up bible history? You do know the NIV draws mostly from the translation from the Vaticanus, a Greek manuscript found in the Vatican, but yet this one transcript wasn't perverted by the Catholics? Sounds like you're picking and choosing what you accept as truth to fit your idea of what is true. You can't have it both ways, attack the Catholics and then use the translation based on the manuscript found in the Vatican.

You may want to read up on Church History a little more. Only one word was not from scripture in the Creed, and that word was essence, or in Greek homoousion. Also, Athanasius asked the question what has the church always taught since the apostles when they defined the Creed. The Creed wasn't something new, it was an expression of what the Apostles and Early Church Fathers had always been teaching through the age of persecution.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

[Sacrum Silentium]

Disasm, you took the words directly from my mouth. Reps.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

You are joking right? You're saying Catholics perverted scripture, and then you say unless we have a NIV bible with a concordance there is nothing more to say... Have you ever looked up bible history? You do know the NIV draws mostly from the translation from the Vaticanus, a Greek manuscript found in the Vatican, but yet this one transcript wasn't perverted by the Catholics? Sounds like you're picking and choosing what you accept as truth to fit your idea of what is true. You can't have it both ways, attack the Catholics and then use the translation based on the manuscript found in the Vatican.

You may want to read up on Church History a little more. Only one word was not from scripture in the Creed, and that word was essence, or in Greek homoousion. Also, Athanasius asked the question what has the church always taught since the apostles when they defined the Creed. The Creed wasn't something new, it was an expression of what the Apostles and Early Church Fathers had always been teaching through the age of persecution.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner. No joke. The reason I said that, is because other concordances do not reveil that fact. What your allowed to know depends on who's team your on. No joke. Thats why I have many different study books. I have taken out my books and have broken down the verse (translated) and the words ("let us") were not there. No joke. Not there.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

This is what I found in regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym: making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." The words "Let us" were not there. According to the N.I.V. Concordence the words (Let us) are A.I.T.= asisted in translation. Here are some additional verses from the N.I.V. bible to think about.
#1. Matthew 26:64. "Yes, it is as you say,"

#2. Mark 14:62. "I am, said Jesus." Did Jesus say yes or I am.

#3. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Or did Jesus say; Before Abraham was born, I lived.

#4. Micah 5:2. "Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

#1. Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," It is recorded in history that the oldest script said, "In my name."

#2. Acts 4:12. "There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

#3. Acts 10:48. "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

#4. Acts 19:5. "They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

#5. Romans 6:3. "All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus ."

N.I.V. 1 John 5:7-8. "7. For there are three that testify: 8. The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
Vulgate 1 John 5:7."For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

Textual Commentary on Revelation 1:11.

K.J.V. Revelation 1:10-11. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,) What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

The bracketed, emboldened portion of the above KJV text was not in the original text of verse 11, as explained below. The NRSV and TEV versions of this verse accurately reflect in English what was written in the original Greek text of that verse.

NRSV 1:10-11. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

TEV 1:10-11. On the Lord's day the Spirit took control of me, and I heard a loud voice, that sounded like a trumpet, speaking behind me. 11 It said, "Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

Commentary

Modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,)

The wording at the beginning of the King James Version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned as a footnote in any modern translation. Now the voice of coarse is the Son of Man; and he is the (first and last) god to be born into this world; however he is not the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End.
K.J.V. 1:12-13. 12. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Now all of the different bibles tell us that God the Father is a Spirit, and that He is Holy. Therefore one of His many name titles is Holy Spirit.

[DarkNLovely]

For serious. And to think that maybe there would be some who would put that historical Protestant hate towards Roman Catholics and anything similar to, behind them and actually do as Christ said and forgive while at the same time not making fanatical statements just because of a 500 year-old grudge.

But I digress.:)
Huh? :confused::scratch:

[RefrusRevlis]

Your Opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RefrusRevlis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37293629#post37293629)
Well, I'm not surprised that Ratzinger attributes the reading in Matthew 28:19 to Rome, given the fact that Catholic tradition and the authority of the church are given equal if not more importance than the scriptures in the Catholic Church. You talk of evidence yet you present theories. Ratzinger's opinion is just that, his opinion.



Your statement "Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words" is not necessarily true, consider this quote:








In all fairness, the previous quote goes on to say, ""On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel..."The possibility that it was a paraphrase is also thus presented. The previous two quotes are another person's suppositions, we could go on and on quoting the suppositions of various people ad nauseum.


The evidence from the manuscripts is of first importance... THEY ALL HAVE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

The evidence of the ancient versions is of secondary importance ...ALL EXTANT VERSIONS THAT HAVE THE PASSAGE INCLUDE "Father, Son Holy Spirit" .

Then we come to sources of tertiary importance, the Ancient Fathers, this is where Eusebius fits in. You are pitting him against the first two sources, when it is not even proiven Eusebius meant to quote Matthew 28:19 verbatim.

Around 200 years before Eusebius Ignatius (died around 110AD) said this in his letter to the Philippians:


You need to separate historical fact and supposition. Fact: all manuscripts of the NT have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.
Fact: all ancient Versions (in other languages to Greek) have the F/S/H Sp in Matthew 28:19.

It may be a fact that someone once said "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries ...etc", but it is not a fact that the statement that person made is actually true, you need to separate opinion from evidence.
Refrus

<<<< Your Opinion<


C'mon is that the only response you can muster?


It is your opinion that what I said was opinion, when in fact I referred to facts.

Almost sounds like a poem.:D

It is not opinion to say all versions and Greek Manuscripts have Father, Son, Holy Spirit. It is a provable fact. The contention that the Greek texts have all been polluted is NOT provable. In a court of law your charges would be thrown out and you probably would get a telling off from the judge for wasting his time.

Refrus

[Macarius]

No joke. The reason I said that, is because other concordances do not reveil that fact. What your allowed to know depends on who's team your on. No joke. Thats why I have many different study books. I have taken out my books and have broken down the verse (translated) and the words ("let us") were not there. No joke. Not there.
Have you ever studied semitic language groups? (That's an honest question). They don't form words in the same way that indo-european groups do, and they don't use semantics (word position) as frequently as indo-european languages to denote grammatical differences.

The Hebrew verb in Genesis 1 is a plural. Hence, "let us" - the translation of the plural form of the verb. Have any doubts about that? Go look up the septuagint form of the verse - the HEBREWS translated with a plural verb into an indo-european language.

Not that it matters. The main thrust of the eisegesis that uses Genesis 1 in favor of the Trinity is based around the three actions: God (Father) existed as fountainhead, He (Father) spoke (Word / Son) as His action on/in the world, and His Spirit (Holy Spirit) floated upon the waters.

The plural verb is just a reinforcement of the idea for trinitarians - non-trinitarians normally say it was merely an example of the "royal we" - many monarchs referred to themselves in the plural, and this could be an example of that, displaying God's monarchy over the world/creation.

As for Matt 28, what evidence (not quotes from scholars taken wildly out of context) do you offer? Why do you accept their (the scholar's) testimony? What inclines you towards it? Why accept their opinion and speculation?

Also, you are aware that there are multiple early referances to a Trinitarian baptismal formula?

The Didache (chapter 3), dating from the second half of the first century - during the generation immediately following the apostles - explicitly connects trinitarianism to baptism: Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit."

Justin Martyr (First Apology, Chatper 61), writing in the early second century - not 100 years after Christ - also has a trinitarian dimmension to his description of christian baptism:

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


This is the case with every early baptismal forumla of which I'm aware. Matthew 28 fits PERFECTLY within this early tradition - what makes you think it was made up?

In Christ,
Macarius

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Anyone here who wants to join Paganism to Christ then that is your right.

[RefrusRevlis]

Anyone here who wants to join Paganism to Christ then that is your right.


No, it's not actually, no one has the right to add anything to the words of God...

You have shown your true colours... not happy with what the evidence unanimously shows - the presence of the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in all Ancient Manuscripts and versions, you have heaped to yourself teachers...

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

The sound doctrine is found in the scriptures, yet you prefer human theories.

Refrus

[ramesses]

s

[ramesses]

Anyone here who wants to join Paganism to Christ then that is your right.

Goodness!
:sigh:

I really don't know what to say.

:prayer: Lord Have Mercy:prayer:

[ramesses]

I believe that tampering with scripture is a terrible sin; it causes Gods holy name to be blasphemed, God is a spirit and he is the Holy Spirit. Having more than one name does not make anyone more than one person.

"I Believe in One God..."


No where do we suggest a polytheistic God.

I suggest reading the Nicene Creed....it is a requirement for joining the Christian part of Christianforums. ;)

[Macarius]

Anyone here who wants to join Paganism to Christ then that is your right.
Anyone here want to ignore and fail-to-respond to the argumentation presented against their perspective... that is your right.

Seriously man - just RESPOND to us and have a discussion instead of side-stepping the arguments presented and continuing to assert, with great vapiditiy, your perspective.

You've established that a few post-modern and modern scholars agree with your assesment of Matt 28, but haven't provided any of the REASONS behind their conclusions. That's all were asking for - a discussion - as opposed to shooting proof texts and assertions back and forth at each other.

Engage with us! Please!

[HypnoToad]

This is what I found in regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym: making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." The words "Let us" were not there. According to the N.I.V. Concordence the words (Let us) are A.I.T.= asisted in translation.
Yeah, I was right, you are confused about one Hebrew word being translated into three English words.

The Hebrew verb is in a plural tense. And since in English first person present and future tense verbs are the same for singular and plural, there needs to be something in English to reflect the plurality, and that's why there is a "let us" or "we shall" in English.

The fact that the Hebrew is plural is what is used as evidence for the Trinity. Removing the "let us" in English does not change the fact the the original Hebrew is plural.

Think about it - if the NIV is telling you "let us" is WRONG, then why does the NIV keep "let us" in their translation?

[oldsage]

This is what I found in regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym: making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." The words "Let us" were not there. According to the N.I.V. Concordence the words (Let us) are A.I.T.= asisted in translation.
And what do you think that means? In Hebrew as in Greek also the verb carries the subject or object. In this case it is the 1st person plural which is "us" And that is needed in the translation because the English demands it.

Here are some additional verses from the N.I.V. bible to think about.
#1. Matthew 26:64. "Yes, it is as you say,"
Failed to see the point in this passage.
#2. Mark 14:62. "I am, said Jesus." Did Jesus say yes or I am.
He said "I am"
#3. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Or did Jesus say; Before Abraham was born, I lived.
He said, "I am"
#1. Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," It is recorded in history that the oldest script said, "In my name."
There is absolutely no evidence for this claim in the manuscript record.
*snip*
The rest of what was written seemed to be irrelevant.
Chris

[Macarius]

He said, "I am"


Yes - go grab a Greek text. The translation "before Abraham was, I am" is extremely literal, almost word for word (except where English takes two words to express what Greek says in one).

The verb of the sentance is "Eimi" (pronounced Aa-Me). It is translated everywhere else as "I am" and is indeed the first person singular form of the Greek verb "to be."

The referance to the I AM is directed to the septuagint Greek Old Testament, where "Eimi" is the very God uses when He says "I AM" in naming Himself. You may, or may not, make that connection with Christ's use of I AM here, but the text IS translated correctly, and you'd have a very very hard time arguing otherwise.

In Christ,
Macarius

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Yeah, I was right, you are confused about one Hebrew word being translated into three English words.

The Hebrew verb is in a plural tense. And since in English first person present and future tense verbs are the same for singular and plural, there needs to be something in English to reflect the plurality, and that's why there is a "let us" or "we shall" in English.

The fact that the Hebrew is plural is what is used as evidence for the Trinity. Removing the "let us" in English does not change the fact the the original Hebrew is plural.

Think about it - if the NIV is telling you "let us" is WRONG, then why does the NIV keep "let us" in their translation? The word El (GOD) can be used in the plural since if your talking about el,s (god,s). If trinitarisn is a biblical truth, then why does God say He is the only one, and that there are no others; why does Jesus say if believe that God is the only one, that we are doing well; Why is the word-s trinity not used in the bible. If you believe that it,s OK to join Paganism to God, then that is your bizness. QUOTE from you. > "Yeah, I was right, you are confused about one Hebrew word being translated into three English words." < End of QUOTE: The intire word (ELOHIYM) is plural, it means (God-of-living) plural; But EL (GOD) himself is only. If I talk about a "Thing": singular; that is only; but if I talk about "things": plural; that is many. Yes it is a matter of fact that the word Elohiym is plurl, but not God Himself. And the words "let us" are AIT; they show in our bibles, but are not in the original text.

[HypnoToad]

The word El (GOD) can be used in the plural since if your talking about el,s (god,s). If trinitarisn is a biblical truth, then why does God say He is the only one, and that there are no others; why does Jesus say if believe that God is the only one, that we are doing well; Why is the word-s trinity not used in the bible.......
Then you don't understand the Trinity, as it is one God, not three.

Yes it is a matter of fact that the word Elohiym is plurl, but not God Himself. And the words "let us" are AIT; they show in our bibles, but are not in the original text.
And, once again, you don't understand what "AIT" means. The Hebrew verb is plural, and leaving it as one word in English would not reflect that, so "let us" is there to reflect the plurality.

You've shown that you don't understand how translation works. You don't understand the simple fact that other languages function differently than English. You don't understand what the Trinity is. Just about everything you've said demonstrates that you are simply not qualified to be instructing anybody on this matter.

[RichWh2]

I would like to state, that believing God is three persons in one being, would not prevent your election to life. The reason for this post, is so that you may know the truth, and that you may worship God in truth. Jesus (Yahshua) is Gods salvation, he was born into this world to fulfill prophecy, and to reconcile man to God.

I would ask you whether you believe in the triune nature of God or not. It can be shown from the Hebrew scriptures that God is plurality. Not that there are many gods, but that God is ONE but has three distinct persons within that Godhead.

If you would like, you can ask me and I can provide you with the writings.

Let me just point you to two passages that deal with this issue.. They are: Hosea 1:7:
"Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen."
The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.
Also Psalm 45:7-8:
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God's God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

A second personality is referred to as the Angel of YHVH. This individual is always considered distinct from all other angels and is unique. [In almost every passage where He is found He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself.
For instance, in Genesis 16:7 He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH,[B] but then in 16:13 as God.
In Genesis 22:11 He is [B]the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Other examples could be given. *(In Genesis 31 he is the Angel of God in verse 11, but then he is the God of Bethel in verse 13. In Exodus 3 he is the Angel of YHVH in verse 2 and he is both YHVH and God in verse 4. In Judges 6 he is the Angel of YHVH in verses 11, 12, 20, and 21 but is YHVH himself in verses 14, 16, 22 and 23. Then in Judges 13:3 and 21 he is the Angel of YHVH but is referred to as God himself in verse 22).
A very interesting passage is Exodus 23:20-23 where this angel has the power to pardon sin because God's own name YHVH is in him, and, therefore, he is to be obeyed without question. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God's own name is in this angel shows His divine status.

A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as simply the Ruach Ha-kodesh.

These are the only three who are ever said to be worshipped in the Old Testament.

The New Testament confirms the tri unity and the plural nature of One God.


In Christ

Rich

[Sothron]

I never heard of the church of Ortho or about there dox.

You should apologize to the nearest window for the damage your credibility did to it just now.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Who is the Holy Spirit? Our bibles inform us that God is Holy and that He is a Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit another being, or is it one of Gods many name titles. And where in the bible does it talk about a Godhead? I see God with Christ and all of the ruleing elders as a head, but I dont see the Holy Spirit mentioned as being with God as another party. Jesus said that the Father and I are one, but the bible also says we are to be one with God also. Perhaps the word "one" should have been translated as "united" or "unity," Just like a husband and wife are one unit.

[Oblio]

I believe that tampering with scripture is a terrible sin;


Indeed ...


Who is the Holy Spirit? Our bibles inform us that God is Holy and that He is a Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit another being, or is it one of Gods many name titles. And where in the bible does it talk about a Godhead? I see God with Christ and all of the ruleing elders as a head, but I dont see the Holy Spirit mentioned as being with God as another party. Jesus said that the Father and I are one, but the bible also says we are to be one with God also. Perhaps the word "one" should have been translated as "united" or "unity," Just like a husband and wife are one unit.


:doh:

Wisdom ... Let us pretend ....

[Macarius]

Perhaps we could attack the problem from a different direction:

Did the Church die, in your opinion?

Did the original teaching of the apostles cease from the earth, or cease to be taught?

[EmperorConstantine]

Huh? :confused::scratch:

Most Protestant types, I'd say at least 75%, basically hate the Roman Catholic Church and anything similar to; usually Orthodox fall under the "anything similar to" part.

People have hated people just for being Roman Catholic since the Reformation. That was almost 500 years ago. Isn't it sad how people still hate others just for belonging to a certain Church?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

It's not about hate, it's about correct doctrine. The Catholic church teaches that it is the original church, but I see a multitude of sins, apart from what was originally taught.

[Oblio]

What pray tell does that have to do with the Holy Trinity :scratch:

[RichWh2]

Who is the Holy Spirit? Our bibles inform us that God is Holy and that He is a Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit another being, or is it one of Gods many name titles. And where in the bible does it talk about a Godhead? I see God with Christ and all of the ruleing elders as a head, but I dont see the Holy Spirit mentioned as being with God as another party. Jesus said that the Father and I are one, but the bible also says we are to be one with God also. Perhaps the word "one" should have been translated as "united" or "unity," Just like a husband and wife are one unit.


The Holy Spirit is God just as the Father and Son are also God. The Godhead is mentioned in Colossians 2:9 I believe. "In Him (Christ) dwells the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form."

As you can see, both the Spirit and the Son are God. The Father is also God, the one whom Jesus prayed to, the one with whom He shared glory with before the world was!

The use of the plural pronoun can also be seen in:
Genesis 3:22: Then the LORD God (YHVH Elohim) said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us.."
Genesis 11:7: "Come, let Us go down, and there confuse their language..."
[Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?"
This last passage would appear contradictory with the singular "I" and the plural "us" except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).

One point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:
Ecclesiastes 12:1: "Remember now you creator..." [Literally: creators.]
Psalm 149:2: "Let Israel rejoice in their Maker." [Literally: makers.]
Joshua 24:19: "...holy God..." [Literally: holy Gods.]
Isaiah 54:5: "For your Maker is your husband..." [Literally: makers, husbands.]

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages, the emphasis being on the meaning of "only."

A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as simply the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God among which are Genesis 1:2, 6:3; Job 33:4; Psalm 51:11; Psalm 139:7; Isaiah 11:2, etc. The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion and will)and is considered divine.
So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures there is a clear showing that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the Lord YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Spirit of God.

So as we can see, the Scriptures make it clear that there is more than one person in the Godhead and the New Testament veifies that. Praise God for His word and consistancy!

In Christ

Rich

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Everyone believes what they want, regardless of the truth. If you guys what to believe in trinitarism, thats you bizness. If you dont like what I have to say, then dont come to this post to bother me. This post is for Christians who want to hear the other side of the story.

[EmperorConstantine]

Everyone believes what they want, regardless of the truth. If you guys what to believe in trinitarism, thats you bizness. If you dont like what I have to say, then dont come to this post to bother me. This post is for Christians who want to hear the other side of the story.
There is no other side of the story.

One can not be non-Trinitarian and Christian. It does not work.

Three persons. One in essence.


Just because Western Christianity says that the Roman Church thought up the Trinity, does not mean that Protestants should abandon it just because it is something that the Roman Church claims. Read up on Church history. Learn of Eastern Christianity.

[EmperorConstantine]

It's not about hate, it's about correct doctrine. The Catholic church teaches that it is the original church, but I see a multitude of sins, apart from what was originally taught.
Than what was originally taught?

[ramesses]

This is the Nicene Creed.
Composed in it's current state at the Council of Constantinople 391A.D where the whole orthodox Church met (orthodox meaning non-heterodox...though the Orthodox Church of today was the same Church present back then, along with the Patriarchate of Rome and the West).
The Creed had been in circulation even before it's named origin of Nicea in 325a.d. as a standard both of Christian unity but also of Christian truth.

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father (and the Son [filioque]), Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.




I don't think you seem to notice what is being said here about the Trinity.
Jesus the Christ is not a distinct person or even god from God the Father but rather, He is God. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. Maybe it is best to think of it as mainly names as the three persons of the trinity are not seperate but all share the essence of God.
To say that Jesus isn't God or that the Holy Spirit isn't God would be heresy.

Instead of getting worried about 'three gods' and the sort, it is far better just to know about one God, the God of Israel. However, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, the one God. Jesus is God incarnate.

BTW, the italicised bit and word 'filioque' simply refers to an addition to the creed made by the Western Patriarchate over 1000 years ago...it was one of the leading factors of the first great division of the Christian Church known as the Great East-West Schism.

[RichWh2]

Everyone believes what they want, regardless of the truth. If you guys what to believe in trinitarism, thats you bizness. If you dont like what I have to say, then dont come to this post to bother me. This post is for Christians who want to hear the other side of the story.


My friend, there is no other story. This is bible fact and Bible exegesis. It is the Christian view and the only biblical one that fits.

No one is bothering YOU. It seems you are trying to force your doctrine down our throats and we say "no thanks"

The Bible is final word on all doctrine. Man is not. :pray:

Rich

[Sacrum Silentium]

Millions of martyrs have died professing the faith of the Triune God. Would you willingly give your life at this point for your structure of belief, rejecting the Trinity?

[RichWh2]

I don't think you seem to notice what is being said here about the Trinity.
Jesus the Christ is not a distinct person or even god from God the Father but rather, He is God. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. Maybe it is best to think of it as mainly names as the three persons of the trinity are not seperate but all share the essence of God.



There is a distinction in persons, however there is no distinction of essence of persons. The fact is that they are separate beings and have the same essence, or nature, which is divinity. God alone is worshipped and only 3 persons were ever worshipped in the Bible.

Love in Christ

Rich

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I was raised a Baptist and trained in the trinity doctrine. You do not need to explain to me about the trinity doctrine. If it was true, then I would have continued believing it was.

[Sacrum Silentium]

I was raised a Baptist and trained in the trinity doctrine. You do not need to explain to me about the trinity doctrine. If it was true, then I would have continued believing it was.
Pride was the first of sins, and is still the greatest of all.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I thought there was a rule against badgering or harassment or derailing.

[nestoj]

I was raised a Baptist and trained in the trinity doctrine. You do not need to explain to me about the trinity doctrine. If it was true, then I would have continued believing it was.
You are placing yourself as an infallible judge of what is truth and what isn’t. Hence - pride.

nestoj
God helps

[Oblio]

If it was true, then I would have continued believing it was.


That's not Baptist theology, it's post-modern Christianity,

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

[F New Roman]You are placing yourself as an infallible judge of what is truth and what isn’t. Hence - pride. [/FONT]
[F New Roman][/FONT]
[F New Roman]I see that you are useing a "unclean and hateful bird" as your avitar.[/FONT]
[F New Roman][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[HypnoToad]

Everyone believes what they want, regardless of the truth. If you guys what to believe in trinitarism, thats you bizness. If you dont like what I have to say, then dont come to this post to bother me. This post is for Christians who want to hear the other side of the story.
Problem, though, is that this "other side" as you've presented it holds no water.

Your first post claimed that EVERY passage that supports the Trinity is fake. You have yet to substantiate that claim. You've given only a couple passages, which you can't substantiate are actually fake, and frankly, you give passages that I don't even use to support the Trinity. There are a multitude of passages you haven't touched yet. So far, your first claim is just false.

You lecture us about what the Hebrew says, but are ignorant about the functional differences between Hebrew and English.

You try to mistranslate a present tense Greek verb into the past tense.

And you make a bunch of empty "I'm just showing the truth, believe what you want" comments that don't give any evidence supporting what you say.

You give absolutely no substantial evidence, and then wonder why people don't agree.

[FreeinChrist]

It is a shame that now folks can come into congregational forums and argue against the Trinity.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

[F New Roman][/FONT]
[F New Roman]I see that you are useing a "unclean and hateful bird" as your avatar.[/FONT]
[F New Roman][/FONT][/QUOTE] The more I look at the errors on here, the more I like them. I would like to state that I do not having to sign in as many as 10 times to leave a post.

[justanobserver]

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."



This is true - when Jesus told the diciples how to baptize, either they knew excatly what He was saying or they disobeyed Him. Toi my knowledge after Jesus gave His instructions no one was baptized until the book of Acts. No where is it mentioned that they used th formula Faher Son and Holy Ghost but the words in jesus Name was used.

This was what swerved me so many years ago to the Oneness doctrines and I come from a Catholic(mom)/baptist)dad family. As far as trinity itself - another poster here said it pretty well:

I don't think you seem to notice what is being said here about the Trinity.
Jesus the Christ is not a distinct person or even god from God the Father but rather, He is God. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. Maybe it is best to think of it as mainly names as the three persons of the trinity are not seperate but all share the essence of God.

I have wrestled with the concept of the Godhead for many years and I am now wondering if the difference is more semantics and wording than anyting else. I remember 1 Tim 3:16 (KVJ) was one of the passages for the Oneness dcotrine.

that was long ago for me when I use to study it.

[HypnoToad]

I remember 1 Tim 3:16 (KVJ) was one of the passages for the Oneness dcotrine.
The passage may support the divinity of Christ (if "God" is even textually correct in the first line, which is questionable), but doesn't lend much to the Oneness view over the Trinity.

[Macarius]

This is true - when Jesus told the diciples how to baptize, either they knew excatly what He was saying or they disobeyed Him. Toi my knowledge after Jesus gave His instructions no one was baptized until the book of Acts. No where is it mentioned that they used th formula Faher Son and Holy Ghost but the words in jesus Name was used.

For Michael's benefit, I would like to state for the record that this is a real argument. Why reject the trinitarian baptismal forumal of Matthew? Because it doesn't show up in Acts.

I, obviously, disagree with that assesment - we are never given a liturgical forumal for baptism in Acts, just a differentiation between "in Jesus name" versus "the baptism of John" (and presumably to contrast it with the baptism practiced by other Jewish sects, though these remain unnamed).

If Matthew was written in the second half of the first century (generally considered to have been written prior to Acts being composed), and the Didache was written somewhere between 10 and 20 years after it (unless you push for the late second century dating of that text), and the two present the same baptismal forumla, and all the manuscripts we have of Matthew have that formula, why would we deny it?

I mean, you could argue that Jesus never said that, but then we're talking about the epistomology of testimony and the reliablility of the gospels for transmitting the teachings and sayings of Jesus, not textual interpolation or corruption.

Why should we accept the idea that Matt 28's baptismal formula was an interpolation and not part of the original text?

On a separate note - while you may come out thinking differently on it - mainstream christians do strongly affirm the essential one-ness of God. We just observe that Jesus is God, yet prays TO the Father and SENDS the Holy Spirit who PROCEEDS from the Father. This means there are three distinctions within that oneness.

That observation is essential to the Trinitarian doctrine - which is an attempt to explain how Christ could pray to the Father and send the Holy Spirit yet BE God in full, co-equal. The "three in one, one in three" language is a way to preserve both the distinctions evident in scripture / early church belief and the essential one-ness of a monotheistic religion. As St.Maximus the Confessor once said (to paraphrase), in the "one" and the "three" we do not understand actual numbers (for how could these finite human concepts impact back to God?) but rather use them to safeguard from error.

St. John the Apostle says that God is Love. We affirm that self-love is not Godlike, so we know that God is not self(ish) love. Can one, that is a single, love itself? Does not love imply an object - an other - a community?

If we also (correctly) affirm that God is, in His essence, unchanging and transcendent, then we must affirm a triune (or at least biune) God: one in essence, unchanging and perfect love and communion. Why? Because God would have to have been community in His transcendent unchanging essence to be love in His transcendent unchanging essence. If we cannot comprehend a 3in1 that is 3 yet 1 it is because we are not God. Any God I can fully comprehend is probably a God I made up.

Anyhow - those are my two cents. But I did want to thank you for posting a real arugment. Seriously. Thank you!!

Cheers,
Macarius

[RichWh2]

I have wrestled with the concept of the Godhead for many years and I am now wondering if the difference is more semantics and wording than anyting else. I remember 1 Tim 3:16 (KVJ) was one of the passages for the Oneness dcotrine.


May I suggest you go to the Jews for Jesus page http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish and read what they have to say about the tri unity of God? It is a great exegetical study of the Hebrew Scriptures and shows that there are 3 and ONLY 3 persons to whom worship was due exclusively.

[justanobserver]

I remember 1 Tim 3:16 (KVJ) was one of the passages for the Oneness dcotrine.

The passage may support the divinity of Christ (if "God" is even textually correct in the first line, which is questionable), but doesn't lend much to the Oneness view over the Trinity.

My bad. meant to say it is USED as part of their teachings to support the Oneness doctrine, among other verses that they use.

looking abck now after all these years and with a different eye, so to speak, some of the doctrine I still favor/see a merit to it but other parts of it I just dont see it as clearly as I did then.

I spent years in the United Pentecostal Church organization. I walked out in '82 and never stepped foot again in a church until Feb '00.

Am still seeking. hence my icon. I am a beleiver, contrary to what some think but I will not call myself a christian or disgrace the name of it until I can practice what I preach, so to speak. but thats just me.:)

[GrinningDwarf]

If you dont have a NIV Exhaustive Concordance then there is nothing more to talk about.

Do you know Hebrew? Greek? One thing I've learned is that there is nothing more dangerous to Scripture interpretation than a first semester Greek student armed with a concordance.

[GrinningDwarf]

His was based on known facts yours is on hearsay.

Or, dare we say...heresy?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

In regards to Genesis 1:26. According to the Masoretic Text, the words "Let Us" are not there in the Hebrew text. However, the words "Let Us" are used in the English interpretation of the Masoretic text. Now if your going to only use the Vatican interpretation of the bible, well then, you are not going to see any difference. If this statement does not make any sence to you, then your beyond hope. P.S. the word Vati/can is a compound word, that being so, then what does the last part of the word mean? (CAN)??? Are you in the belly of the can!

[HypnoToad]

In regards to Genesis 1:26. According to the Masoretic Text, the words "Let Us" are not there in the Hebrew text. However, the words "Let Us" are used in the English interpretation of the Masoretic text. Now if your going to only use the Vatican interpretation of the bible, well then, you are not going to see any difference. If this statement does not make any sence to you, then your beyond hope. P.S. the word Vati/can is a compound word, that being so, then what does the last part of the word mean? (CAN)??? Are you in the belly of the can!
Why don't you translate the passage for us, show in English the proper way to reflect the plural Hebrew verb.

[Monergism]

-snip-

All of this is nice and dandy, Michael, especially since it appears to me that you plagiarized. Go here (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm) to find the same thing. Now, here is the entertaining part. Please provide me one manuscript written in koine Greek that does not say: πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος.

Scripture was changed to support the trinitarism doctrine of the Catholic church. It was not a original teaching of the disciples. All of the places in our bibles that support the the ideal that God is three persons was added by the Catholic church.

Even if Matthew 28:19 was not present, what difference would it make? Oneness theologians could use Matthew 28:19 to say that the Greek word for "name" is singular, thus, God is not triune, but uni-personal. Besides, 1 Corinthians 12:-4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2, &c., to name a few already offer something "Trinitarian." Are we to think that these are less worthy compared to the words of Jesus? After all, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). It would be much appreciated if you offered proof.

The words (Hell) was also added in place of (grave).

This is a minor quibble not worth complaining over. If you know that the word "grave" should be placed where שְׁאוֹל (sheol) is, you're more than welcome to. However, be all the more ready to complain about certain words that aren't present in the Hebrew. For example, the opening sentence of Genesis is בְּרֵאשִׁית (bereshith), which would actually read, "In [the] beginning." Bereshith is anarthrous, that is to say, it lacks the article. The same is with the Septuagint on Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Both are Εν αρχη (En archē), and they are also literally translated as "In [the] beginning." The brackets indicate either NIH or NIG (Not In Hebrew/Greek). You better learn Hebrew and Greek!

The concept of hell is part of the pagan religion.

This is quite tangent from the original discussion.

Hell is not part of Judeaism or the original teaching of the disciples.

But Sheol/Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna are.

The word (Apostle) was added in place of disciple. A apostle was a messenger of Apollyon, a apostle mouth, a person who speaks the language of the serpent. The placeses in the bible that say God is evil or does evil, they were translated that way for secret societies who believe in dualism. That is, God is both Good and evil. Thats about it, the other things are not worth mentioning. Oh, and then there was Joseph Smith who introduced the book of Mormon. He was a Mason. Oh, and verse 9 of the book of Jude was added by the Catholic church. That should keep you busy.

These are also tangent.

And where Jesus said: "the father and I are one." that can also be translated to mean "United." I also would like to state that we are also called be be "one" with the Father, according to scripture.

No, it cannot be translated as "united." That is interpretative, but not word-for-word. Actually, the Greek would go, εγω και ο πατηρ εν εσμεν (egō kai ho patēr hen esmen; "I and the Father, we are one"). As for your argument concerning that we be one, just as the Father and the Son, go here (http://www.forananswer.org/) and look under Apologist Commentary John 10:30.

If you dont have a NIV Exhaustive Concordance then there is nothing more to talk about.

Well sure, that's the easy way out. Here's one for you. If you don't know how to read or write Hebrew or Greek, then there is nothing more to discuss here.

I have taken out my books and have broken down the verse (translated) and the words ("let us") were not there. No joke. Not there.

Read above to see that words must be inserted in English translations in order to understand them. But here, I'll offer a list of English translations for you.

"Let us" (Geneva); "Let us" (KJV); "Let Us" (NKJV); "Let Us" (YLT); "Let us" (NIV); "Let Us" (NASB); "Let us" (ESV); "Let us" (NJPS).

This is what I found in regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym: making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." The words "Let us" were not there. According to the N.I.V. Concordence the words (Let us) are A.I.T.= asisted in translation.

All it means is that words are inserted to understand it. After all, saying, "And said God: making man in our image and likeness" doesn't make any sense at all. If you really want to go like this, then let us read Genesis 1:1 as, "In beginning created God the heavens and the earth."

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I thought I should let people here know that I am not going to post here any more. Im going to build a web site, and I will post all of the facts on it. Good bye.

[HypnoToad]

I thought I should let people here know that I am not going to post here any more. Im going to build a web site, and I will post all of the facts on it. Good bye.
Would that be just the same unsubstantiated "facts" as here? Or will this site provide actual evidence behind all these claims? It's easy to just put up a web page. Then you don't have to talk to anyone and respond to their challenges.

[GrinningDwarf]

I thought I should let people here know that I am not going to post here any more. Im going to build a web site, and I will post all of the facts on it. Good bye.

And another cult is born...

[Sacrum Silentium]

It's no wonder there are over 20,000 Christian sects in the world today.

[RichWh2]

Would that be just the same unsubstantiated "facts" as here? Or will this site provide actual evidence behind all these claims? It's easy to just put up a web page. Then you don't have to talk to anyone and respond to their challenges.


There is no fact, there is no evidence. There are