Jump to content
angels4u

What is the doctrine of the Trinity?

Recommended Posts

MORE EVIDENCE:

There is literally a couple hundred quotes claiming Matthew 28:19 was changed!!

These are just some from Biblical Scholars and Professors and from those whose jobs were to simply research the Church history!!

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
The following quote is often used in support of Matthew 28:19 being corrupted. Note also that the words in parenthesis are added but not by me. It appears Ratzinger was referring to the creed and not this verse. So I would not use this quote in support of a corruption as many have. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the third and fourth 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.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83

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.

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.

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 (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture...” “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, 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 into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) 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:...

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, cf. Acts 1:5 +.

New Revised Standard Version says this about 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...

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 [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] 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. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was expanded [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 expansion.

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. 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.

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 fourth century.

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 triune 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 triune formula was a later development.

“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, Baptize and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

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.” The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.

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.

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 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 Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 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 ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition.

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 confessed 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 [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the fourth century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted.

Edited by childoftheking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Daniel Marsh,

 

Marsh is a unique name.   There is a family where I come from who owns several grocery stores called "Marsh."  You are not related to them by any chance?   If so, then you are related to me hahahahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 7:22 PM, childoftheking said:

Hey Daniel Marsh,

 

Marsh is a unique name.   There is a family where I come from who owns several grocery stores called "Marsh."  You are not related to them by any chance?   If so, then you are related to me hahahahahaha

Marsh became a common name due to plural marriage.   So, it is possible.

  • Brilliant! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Daniel Marsh said:

Marsh became a common name due to plural marriage.   So, it is possible.

I never knew that.   Thank You for sharing that.   I know I am related from my Grandmother's side (Peirson's), but actually never studied the origin of the Marsh name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Daniel Marsh said:

 

Do you agree the Apostles Peter, Timothy, and Paul...including Paul's letters Baptized in the Name of Yeshua in the Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament?

 

It is what the Greek Papyrus claims, that is 1600 years older than your KJV.

 

I therefore propose this question:

If the Apostles Baptized in Name of Yeshua.

Wouldn't it be logical they were following what the original passage of Matthew 28:19 claims, "In the Name of Yeshua?"

 

And Paul claimed, he DID NOTHING, WROTE NOTHING, SPOKE NOTHING and that it was ALL YESHUA GUIDING HIM!!

We see Paul Baptize in Name of Yeshua.

If Yeshua is GUIDING PAUL, and Paul Baptized in Name of Yeshua, that would make Yeshua a DOUBLE MINDED GOD ((if)) He actually did instruct to Baptize in the Trinity.

 

It's clear that Yeshua is not DOUBLE MINDED!!

Just as clear that Matthew 28:19 was changed like the proofs I offered.

 

Because Yeshua would not instruct His Disciples to Baptize 1 way and the Disciples as Apostles Baptized differently.

The same with Paul, Yeshua instructed Paul to Baptize in Yeshua's Name like Paul claimed Yeshua was GUIDING HIM.

 

They clearly OBEYED YESHUA!!

But they could ONLY have obeyed, if Matthew 28:19 ORIGINALLY said, to Baptize in Yeshua's Name!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...