Jump to content

What is the doctrine of the Trinity?

Recommended Posts

You ignored the fact that,  "He did not write what you wrote or quoted.   That came from a footnote.   Not in the original text by Eusebius."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 7:07 PM, childoftheking said:


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.

https://www.truthseeker.church/matthew28  was already investigated in another thread and proven to be dishonest and unreliable.   The site is even known for making up quotes.   Nice Try.   Maybe the person who exposed it can link to the thread that exposed it as a bad joke.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter on the Council of Nicaea
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese.

1. What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great Council assembled at Nicæa, you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, the second, which [the Fathers] put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:—

2. As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this :—

3. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost:

believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Matthew 28:19 . Concerning Whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.

4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula:—

The Faith dictated in the Council.

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced of the essence of the Father, and one in essence with the Father. Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase of the essence was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term One in essence, peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view.

6. In the same way we also admitted begotten, not made; since the Council alleged that made was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be , but was of an essence which is too high for the level of any work; and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father , the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every originated nature.

7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is one in essence with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's essence and power (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien), but because one in essence with the Father suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begot Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father. To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term one in essence, in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son.

8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the forementioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, out of nothing, and once He was not, and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.

9. Moreover to anathematize Before His generation He was not, did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.

10. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always, being all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way.

11. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute as long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have already published.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2016 at 9:24 AM, angels4u said:

How can God be both one and three? Is the Trinity a contradiction? If Jesus is God, why do the Gospels record instances where He prayed to God?

Jesus says God is Spirit. It is like how gold can be material being, but in more than one form, and it can flow. God is love, and love is in more than one personal form > the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God is the Supreme Being of Family Caring and Sharing love, with more than one Person of this one love. God is not material being, but spiritual being of love. And He is personal and conscious, unlike material being. So, He can be in different personal forms and flowing - - - all love, all conscious, all personally caring and creative.

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love, I would conclude. And only God can be the spiritual being of His own love. And the Holy Spirit shares this love, right "in our hearts". So, this shows how personal God is. God is love, this personal with His children.

And so, we can see from this how we need to be personal in our loving, not only trying to use and control people. And God's love is tenderly caring and sharing in His family way. And we can see how God's word tells us to also be loving in His family way >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

God the Trinity is not only something to explain or say we can't explain. But God is our example > Ephesians 5:1-2.

So, I would say believing in the Trinity includes following the example of how God is and how our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit relate as Family. Their love in us has us growing in this.

Edited by com7fy8

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can understand it with our current language and the logic available to us so to speak.

  • Loved it! 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at an intersection of three roads the other day.   All three roads are of the same nature or attributes, thus one, but also had separate names, thus three.   Poor analogy, I know, but human language is not perfect. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I also believe there is a mystery involved in  the  Trinity our  natural minds simply cannot fully  apprehend.  But I think it can still be very  productive to make the attempt.

The analogy  I find  most helpful to me personally is ice, water and steam.  Same fundamental substance, manifesting in three very different forms under different conditions.  No analogy is perfect, but that  one does help me conceptualize how He can be three and yet fully One.  

At one time years  ago I  spent some time really pondering on Him and trying to gain a better understanding.  I was led to a visual analogy, or parable?  Not sure what to call it.  But I perceived a 4 tiered step pyramid, the  odd thing was it was upside down.  Resting on the  point or smallest tier.  It was clear as glass and there was a sword plunged downward through the heart of the pyramid with the point of the sword reaching to the bottom limit.  The hilt of the sword stood above the crystal structure and was deeply engraved with the word TRUTH.

The context this fell into was a season when I was also studying and deeply  interested in what science is calling "dimensions"  I became convinced (still am) that  what science calls dimensions is what  the Bible has always called the  spirit realm and "heavens". 

The picture related in my mind to Paul's explanation of Psalm 68:18:


Therefore He says:

“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
(Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first[fn] descended into the lower parts of the earth?  He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)


Jesus was appointed to descend for  our sakes, took  our punishment in death  and then ascended and filled ALL things with Himself.  He IS Truth:


Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


I think it's possible to imagine that deepest point of that inverted  pyramid as the third heaven, the Throne of God and the  "heaven" from which all other  heavens were  created.  In that condition God is manifest as Father.  In the  layer above it (2 dimensions?) we might perceive  the Spirit, God  in the realms of spiritual reality.  In the three  dimensions where we live in the flesh God  is manifest as Jesus....

I  think there  are several possible ways to look at that visual analogy and i think each of them just might  reveal at least  a conceptual handle to wrestle with  understanding this reality of the Trinity.   But as I said before, I  sincerely doubt we'll fully apprehend His nature while in this flesh.  :) 

Edited by Jostler

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to comprehend?

Not really.

If we can grasp the three spatial dimensions, the the Trinity is no problem at all. 

Everywhere all the time space is height, length, depth.  The absence of any one of which

disrupts the other two. You can't have any without all three (down to the quantum level).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Create New...