- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Historical proofs as to the way the trinitarian
doctrine effected the pure doctrine of the disciples.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence
for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this
would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned
on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical
criticism.Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the
historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must
be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by
the [Catholic] church.”The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact
words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition.”The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to
the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the
second century.”Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
“The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural
proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in
(AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture.” “The chief
Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew
28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other
Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text (“in my name” rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian
formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does
not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is
doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from
early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal
usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic)
Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit.”The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
“Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian
order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows
only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5;
Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the
second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs
only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and
Justin, Apol. 1:61.Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of
the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such
formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be
disputed.” page 435.The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
“It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing “in the name of Jesus.”The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under “Baptism,” says:
“Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical
situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early
Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the
mouth of Jesus.”New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19.
“Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and
that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in
the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism
performed with the name of the Trinity.”James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this
statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing “in the name of Jesus.” Acts 1:5.Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his “For
Christ's sake,” page 103 informs us of these facts: “All but the
most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of
this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The
formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and
we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone.
It is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in
My Name” and then was changed to work in the [later
Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by
German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth
century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship
as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published:
“The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this
world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The
command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late
doctrinal addition.”The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the
threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.”Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic
Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse
Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. “As
to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in
which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if
possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22,
Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically
says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic
Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured
on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G.
Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's
College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that
Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian
Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. “In the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” although those
words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all
baptisms fitted this rule.” Dr Hall further, states: “More common
and perhaps more ancient was the simple, “In the name of the Lord
Jesus or, Jesus Christ.” This practice was known among Marcionites
and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and
Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate (“On
rebaptism”) shows.”The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1,
Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J.
Foakes
Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. “There is
little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle
of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline
Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem
is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to
Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the
analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New
Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation.
By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the
Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest
form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it
possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ
commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ
given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have
followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the
New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of
this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the
short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and
the longer trine formula was a later development.”A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History
at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again
declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the
name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of
the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed
to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the
original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the
practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the
Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century
retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least,
baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular,
certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text
of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian)
profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and
third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far
as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came
from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew
28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence
proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated.
Very few know about these historical facts.
“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page
152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his
library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered
Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first
copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus'
actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.”That “Name” is Jesus.See Daniel 8:9,12 and 2Tim 4:3.
Matthew 28
1 After the Sabbaths, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.
6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.
7 Go quickly and tell his disciples; He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him. Now I have told you.
8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, took hold of his feet and honored him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid”. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.
12 When the chief priests had met with the elders they devised a plan, and gave the soldiers a large sum of money,
13 telling them, “You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.”
14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”
15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
17 When they saw him, they honored him; but some doubted.
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “Authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name.
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am
with you always, even to the very end of the age.”You should take note that Matthew 28:1 say,s Sabbath,s (plural) not singular.The first day of the week is sunday, but the first day of the week after the Sabbath,s is monday. Mary would not have attended Jesus grave on sunday because it would have been a violation of the law. See: leviticus 23:5,7. No work is to be done on saturday or sunday. You should also know that there is a differance between the old hebrew calendar and the new. Useing the old sacred hebrew calendar the fourteenth day would alway,s begin on friday at sunset. According to the bible a day begin,s at sunset. Jesus said that he would be in the grave three day,s, so than his resurrection would not have come until after sunday evening.See also Mark 15:42. Preparation day before the seventh day saturday sabbath is friday.
Here's some more info on the trinity doctrine.
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” (Col 2:16-18)
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” (1 Tim 6:20)
The “oppositions of science falsely so called.” is the opposition to a Jewish Gnosticism (science is”gnosis” in the Greek, esoteric knowledge/wisdom). Is the “profane and vain babblings” the Church had to combat.
The worshipping of angels was then and is now one of the distinctive marks of Jewish Kabbalism. Kabbalism today use's angels, magic, and astrology in their occult system, attempting to control their destiny. The first few chapters of Hebrews is another example, in correcting the Jew's emphasis on angels.
The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “The principal elements of Gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation.” The Jewish Encyclopedia also states that: “It is a noteworthy fact that heads of Gnostic schools and founders of Gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the early Church fathers.”
The Roman Catholic Church with its philosophy of a hidden God who should be approached through intermediaries such as saints and angels is the same distinctive doctrine of the Kabbalah.The angel that the Kabbalists call Metatron, is the female god of the Kabbalah, which they call the “shekhinah”, it has emerged into Catholic theology as Mary.
The Catholic Church also absorbed the asceticism of the Gnostics into a system of celibacy for monks, priests and nuns.Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book “Morals and Dogma” he says of the Kabbalist “Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism,” their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.
Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says, he was a Kabbalist “a initiate of the mysteries.”
The Pharisees, who are Masonic like Kabbalists, were Hellenistic Jews and the enemies of Jesus Christ.The Jewish Encyclopedia: “We are forced to conclude that the Pharisees introduced an element of confusion into Christian theology which we still have not emerged from.”
“Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your Holy Spirit from me” (Psalms 51:11).
Moses received the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:11).
Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1). Was he filled with another person inside his body? No. He was filled with the presence of God.“He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me; Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he, which baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33).
So here we see a change. People are now given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. This will automatically mean more people (not just prophets and patriarchs) would receive the Holy Spirit.
“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Peter told the people at Jerusalem about Jesus being crucified and they responded by asking what they should do.
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
Was Peter telling them they could receive a person into their body? No.
So after the day of Pentecost (which is the same day as the Feast of First Fruits) people were able to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. No longer was this the domain of only a few as in the Old Testament. However those being called were still relatively few compared to the world population.
There is no mention of the trinity in the entire Bible. There is only one place in which the original Greek of the New Testament mentions the Father and Son and Holy Spirit together. For an explanation of this read: The False Doctrine of the Trinity and The Trinity.
Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were the students of the original apostles. They lived at the turn of the century, before and after 100 AD. They did not mention a trinity or give a description of a trinity in all their writings.
It was not until the second century AD that the idea of a trinity began to take shape in the Christian community
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is also known as Tertullian. In the second century he was the first to introduce trinitarism into christianity. He was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.
The idea of individual substanence hypostasis was first introduced by Origen. Origen considered the Son to be not coequal, but derived from the Father whom is the Holy Spirit. Arius would adopt the idea of the Son being derivative of the Father in the third century AD. This eventually lead to a major crisis in the Counsel of Nicea.
Arius gained many followers as he taught that Christ was a created being, created by the Father.
Arians were the followers of Arius.The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not explicate the trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism. There was no resolution on who the Holy Spirit is. That notion would not arise in full strength until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Basilius, also known as Basil, bishop of Caesarea. In the later 3rd century AD, formulated ideas as to what the Holy Spirit was. This was mainly in reaction to Arius who was his enemy doctrinally. Basil and others such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were encouraged to develop ideas to combat the idea of Arianism. The person who encouraged them was Athanasius who hated Arianism and wanted to wipe it out.
Philo introduced the idea of trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God is greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.How the Trinity Doctrine Entered Christianity
God commanded, “You will not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7 NRSV) Because of this command the translators of the Septuagint, did not transliterate the name “Yahweh” into Greek. They believed that the transliteration would have been a misuse of God's name. Instead, they translated it as “Kyrios,” which in English is the word LORD. So therefore, the word Lord/Kyrios, became the name of Yahweh in Greek. It was a common title for masters or men of authority. Also, the New Testament writers applied it to Jesus. In the end, Jesus and God shared the same name: Lord/Kyrios.
In the early 4th century, Lactantius (born 240 A.D. died 320 A.D.) wrote: “He {Jesus} taught that God is one {person} and that He {the Father} alone ought to be adored, nor did He {Jesus} ever call himself God.” Lactantius did not recognize a Trinity. He emphasized that Jesus is an “improperly called god,” and must not be worshipped as God.
Wrong interpretations and the distortion of God's word is what supports the doctrine of the trinity.When asked, “Which is the most important commandment of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important of all the commandments is, hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is One.” (
Mark 12:29)That is what we find throughout the scriptures:
“Beside me there is no God.” (Isa. 44:6)
“I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me.” (Isa. 45:5)
“I am God, and there is none else.” (Isa. 46:9)
“One God and Father of all, who is above all.” (Eph. 4:6)
“Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deut. 6.4)
“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5)
“There is but one God, the Father, whom made all things, and us by Himself , and one lord Jesus Christ, by whom we are in. (1 Cor. 8:6)
“This is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
This last quotation is Jesus speaking; addressing God in prayer as the one true God, and speaking of himself as separate from that one true God.thx MichaelTheeArchAngel,
Your posts are interesting.
In the name of something refers to the authority of something. E.g If I say in the name of the Law, then I am invoking the authority of the Law. If I am saying something in the name of Jesus, then it is his authority rather than the pronounciation that I am invoking and we know his authority comes from God and God sent his Spirit to the Church. Hence a possible interpretation of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So Matthew 28:19 doesn't teach a Trinity anyway, but I do wonder if this verse was added in. There appears to be no obvious evidence that it was, as all translations appear to have the verse included. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was added in either. Does anyone have any historical evidence to add, that may point to an addition?
Anyway, I personally believe that the Trinity Doctrine is a Babylonian doctrine and is this is why it says in Revelation, to come out of her my people. Yet Babylon was destroyed millenia ago but is referenced as existing toward the end of this age. To me, I suspect that she was destroyed as a city, but her influence, in particular her religion lived on. She made the whole world drunk on her wine and she rides on the Beast (political empire/leader). The Beast in John's day was of course Rome and it does seem suspicious that Mystery Babylon is referred to as a city on 7 hills that rules over the Kings of the earth. Rome as a few other cities are to this day called the city on 7 hills.
I started up a discussion on Babylon's idenity a while back. If you want to contribute something on that subject, then feel free to visit that discussion.
I look forward to more posts from you in the future.
Revelation 17
The Woman and the Beast
1 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters.
2 With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.”
3 Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.
4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.
5 This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.
7 When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.
10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while.
11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.
13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.
14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings–and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”
15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.
16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.
17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled.
18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”Quote: So Matthew 28:19 doesn't teach a Trinity anyway, but I do wonder if this verse was added in. There appears to be no obvious evidence that it was, as all translations appear to have the verse included. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was added in either. Does anyone have any historical evidence to add, that may point to an addition?******* My Reply: In the begenning of this post is some history were catholic priest admit that the church changed the scripture to read ” Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” As for how translations of scripture reads, that depends on a persons personal beliefs. Truth is narrowly defined, but not everyone is able to see it. Truth depends on a persons ability to accept it. I find most people in the world to be very dishonest. There are two kind of truth seekers in the world, those who are seeking Gods truth, and those who are seeking their own truth. Even if a person is very honest, will they be able reconize the truth when they see it? It is difficult to discuse with christians what the truth is when they entertain fantasies about what scripture says. According to scripture angels do not literally have wings, but many christians will insist that they do. Many christians are unable to grasp the concept of a parable and how it requires a spirit of discernment. Gods word is true (the bible) but the lieing pen of the scribes have polluted it.
Exodus 25:20
The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover.1 Kings 6:27
He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room.1 Kings 8:7
The cherubim spread their wings over the place of the ark and overshadowed the ark and its carrying poles.Isaiah 6:2
Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.Ezekiel 1:8
Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings,Ezekiel 1:9
and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.Ezekiel 1:11
Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out upward; each had two wings, one touching the wing of another creature on either side, and two wings covering its body.Ezekiel 10:8
(Under the wings of the cherubim could be seen what looked like the hands of a man.)Ezekiel 10:19
While I watched, the cherubim spread their wings and rose from the ground, and as they went, the wheels went with them. They stopped at the entrance to the east gate of the LORD 's house, and the glory of the God of Israel was above them.Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”Quote (Guest @ May 11 2004,06:59) Quote: So Matthew 28:19 doesn't teach a Trinity anyway, but I do wonder if this verse was added in. There appears to be no obvious evidence that it was, as all translations appear to have the verse included. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was added in either. Does anyone have any historical evidence to add, that may point to an addition?******* My Reply: In the begenning of this post is some history were catholic priest admit that the church changed the scripture to read ” Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” As for how translations of scripture reads, that depends on a persons personal beliefs. Truth is narrowly defined, but not everyone is able to see it. Truth depends on a persons ability to accept it. I find most people in the world to be very dishonest. There are two kind of truth seekers in the world, those who are seeking Gods truth, and those who are seeking their own truth. Even if a person is very honest, will they be able reconize the truth when they see it? It is difficult to discuse with christians what the truth is when they entertain fantasies about what scripture says. According to scripture angels do not literally have wings, but many christians will insist that they do. Many christians are unable to grasp the concept of a parable and how it requires a spirit of discernment. Gods word is true (the bible) but the lieing pen of the scribes have polluted it.
Besides my last post, I think your post is good so thx for your contribution.In regards to angels with wings: In the begining of scripture the words like parable, vision, or dream often begin the subject of angels with wings, but those words are often over looked. Wings symbolize satus. The reason Ezekiel shows the same angels with four wings insted of six, is because that is those mens status during there time on earth. The words (messenger of god) is translated, angel. A angel can be a person born here on earth or from the kingdom of heaven.
It does make sense that this is a later added verse in the NT, Because none of the disciple baptise through matt 28:19 father , son, holy spirit. But they always Baptise in the one name, Jesus christ. Because if you know Jesus, you know GoD, cause Jesus reveals GoD to you- and then GoD senD's the Holy Spirit at Jesus request.
From my understanding, Some angels Have wings, Some do not. Or at least some appear to not have wings.
But what does that belief matter?
Quote (MichaelTheeArchAngel @ May 06 2004,06:41) 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.”
Does anyone else have any more evidence supporting the idea that Matthew 28:19 is an addition?Also, is the quote above talking about Matthew 28:19 or just the baptisimal formula in general?
Thanks for the contributions so far.
If it were added in and I wouldn't be surprised, it would just affirm the deceptiveness of the Catholic Church's alteration of doctrine as can be seen with their doctrine of the trinity, baptisms, salvation and leadership.
I pray in the name of Yahshua, that God will judge her and free her captives and I pray that we may all be free of her deceptions and works of iniquity
This site is a bunch of heretics who deny Christ
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. John 1:14 THE WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us… 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, WHO CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver AND AN ANTICHRIST.
The word was god.. The word became flesh.. He who confess “not” that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh = Antichrist.
Wow!! Is that an encyclopedia Endorced by the catholic church??
Is that a Chatholic view of the Baptismal formula??
Or is it someone elses??
Either way- It seems as though People may not even be getting baptised- That means I have not been baptised either-
cause I was baptised into the father son and holy spirit aswell.Id like to think that GoD see's it as a propper baptism- But what you'd like to think and what it is are usually 2 different things.
Hey wally ^_^
Welcome, Here I think most of us believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Jesus said- He is the SoN of GoD- Worship the LorD your GoD and only Him shall you serve.
You see, GoD wants us to serve christ by doing this we serve GoD.
Now as for Baptism
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.This was the legitemate baptism
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
(Whole Chapter: Acts 8 In context: Acts 8:11-13)Acts 8:16
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[ 8:16 Or in] the name of the Lord Jesus.Acts 19:5
On hearing this, they were baptized into[ 19:5 Or in] the name of the Lord Jesus.Hmm, Not one in the name of father son holyspirit.
As for who Jesus Is- The disciple also knew that much ^_^
Jesus was a servant of GoD-Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.
(Whole Chapter: Acts 3 In context: Acts 3:12-14)Acts 3
25And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.'[1] 26When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”Footnotes
3:25 Gen. 22:18; 26:4As you see, It was GoD who sent Jesus and not some mysterious trinity ^_^. GooD day to you ^_^
Quote (Guest @ May 14 2004,21:07) This site is a bunch of heretics who deny Christ John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. John 1:14 THE WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us… 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, WHO CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver AND AN ANTICHRIST.
The word was god.. The word became flesh.. He who confess “not” that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh = Antichrist.
Hi Wally,I can see that you haven't thought about this very deeply.
Is there another post talking about the validity of the Father Son Holy Spirit Baptism V.S. BAptised into the name Jesus christ???
Id like to explore this and see what other people think. ^_^
Greetings t8
Quote (t8 @ May 14 2004,00:47) [Quote from MichaelTheeArchAngel,May 06 2004,06:41]
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.”
Does anyone else have any more evidence supporting the idea that Matthew 28:19 is an addition?Also, is the quote above talking about Matthew 28:19 or just the baptisimal formula in general?
Thanks for the contributions so far.
Page 263 of the Catholic Ency (Vol 2) doesn't actually say the above.
Here are the relevant quotes from this page … (emphasis mine)Quote In addition to the necessary word “baptize,” or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity. …
St. Cyprian … rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ Only, affirms that the naming of the persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord …
The mind of the Church as to the necessity of observing the trinitarian formula in this sacrament has clearly shown by her treatment of baptism confered by heretics. …
Converts from Sabellianism were ordered by the First Council of Constantinople (can. 7) to be rebaptized becase the doctrine of Sabellius that there was but one person in the Trinity had infected their baptismal form.The two sects sprung from Paul of Samosata, who denied Christ's divinity, likewise conferred invalid baptism. They were the Paulinists and Photinians. Pope Innocent I … declares that these sectaries did not distinguish the Persons of the Trinity when baptizing. The Council of Nicaea (can. 19) ordered the rebaptism of Paulinists, and the Council of Arles (can. 16 and 17) decreed the same for both Paulianists and Photinians. …
There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.
The article then quotes Acts 19:5, 10:48, 8:16, 2:38. However it then procedes to explain itself out of this apparent contradiction to the church's trinitarian formula!!
Please note: You can see the entire article on the internet at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
See VI. MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT, (2) FormPersonally, I think one of the stronger proofs that there may have been some tampering is the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea (before the Council of Nicea, AD325) generally quoted Matthew 28:19 as follows:
Quote “Teach all nations in my Name, instructing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Here are some other quotes related to Eusebius' quotations of Matthew 28:19.
Quote
Quoting HASTINGS' Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethnics, Vol. 2, p. 380:
The facts are in summary that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything
between “nations” and “Teaching” or in the form “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, IN MY NAME.” … the latter form being the more frequent.Quote
Quoting Francis C. Conybeare from his article in the THE HIBBERT JOURNAL, Vol 1, p.102-108:
It therefore imports to ask how Eusebius read this text. He cites it again and again in works between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his
Theophany only preserved in an old Syriac version … in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28.19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”
And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words “in my name.”
It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard, and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice.In Justin Martyr, who wrote between AD130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28.19 … The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p.258: “God hath not inflicted nor inflicts judgment, as knowing of some that still even to-day are being made disciples in the name of his Christ … being illumined by the name of this Christ.“
The objection hitherto to these words being recognised as a citation of our texta was that they ignored the
formula “baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and holy Spirit.” But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes this difficulty; and Justin is seem to have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300-340.There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates … who wrote between 337
and 345. He cites our text in a formal manner as follows:“Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.“ The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading “in my name” … Were the reading of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in presence of the Eusebian and Justinian text this is impossible.t8, Hope the above is of some help to you …
Quote (ringo111 @ May 15 2004,05:50) Is there another post talking about the validity of the Father Son Holy Spirit Baptism V.S. BAptised into the name Jesus christ??? Id like to explore this and see what other people think. ^_^
No there isn't at the moment, but feel free to discuss this subject here, as it is related to the Trinity Doctrine and the first post discussed did discuss this baptismal formula.Hi Adam Pastor,
I haven't read your last post yet, I have just skimmed over it. But I will read properly when I have more time and will read the linked page that you gave. thx
For now, I wonder if any can validate the following quotes:
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365–Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.
Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53–The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume2–Christian baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus” page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263–Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church.
Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435–The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.
Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88–It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus.
Quote (t8 @ May 15 2004,04:34) Hi Adam Pastor, I haven't read your last post yet, I have just skimmed over it. But I will read properly when I have more time and will read the linked page that you gave. thx
For now, I wonder if any can validate the following quotes:
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365–Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.
Page 365 contains the following …
• “The Trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning”
• “… in the name of the Lord – the normal formula of the New Testament.”
• “In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.”
• “From Pope Zachariah we learn that the Celtic missionaries in baptizing omitted one or more persons of the Trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the church in Rome anathematized them”
• “Pope Nicholas, however (858-67), allowed baptism to be valid as in the Acts.”
• “Baptism 'into the death of Christ' is often specified by the Armenian fathers as that which alone was essential”
• “Ursinus, an African monk and Hilary also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid”Quote Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53–The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. SORRY. NO CAN DO … THAT IS, I CAN'T VERIFY IT
Quote Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume2–Christian baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus” page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389. Page 376:
After 'baptism in the name of the Lord,' a man was regarded as 'in Christ' or 'in the Lord.'
Page 377:
3. The baptismal formula. …
(Acts 2:38-40), 'Repent, and let each of you get himself baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sins,' etc. The phrase 'in my name' now calls for closer consideration. It is clear from contemporary usage (e.g. Acts 1:15, Rev 3:4) that 'name' was an ancient synonym for 'person'. … In any case the formula 'in the name of,' with or without associations from OT usage … came to have in all Christian circles – though with different shades of thought, as between typical Jews and others – the pregnant sense of identification between the baptized and Him in whose name baptism took place. The one became thereby the personal property of the other, as part of the people of peculiar possession … and the 'bondservant' of the true Lord … as all NT writers agree in putting it.Please note: The tenor of pages (377-378) favors 'baptism in the NAME of Jesus Christ!
Page 389:
The earliest known formula is 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' or some similar phrase; this is found in the Acts, and was perhaps still used by Hermas, but by the time of Justin Martyr the trine formula had become general.Quote Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263–Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. See my previous post Posted: May 14 2004,17:51 :
Quote Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435–The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.
Conybeare had tried to prove that the original text of Matthew 28:19 did not contain the baptismal command or the trinitarian formula, which were interpolated, according to him, at the beginning of the third century. But since the investigations of Riggenbach, the ordinary reading may be considered the original. Jesus, however, can not have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after his resurrection; for the New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 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 Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol., 1:61. It is unthinkable that the Apostolic Church thus disobeyed the express command of the Lord, which it otherwise considered the highest authority. … Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula Matt. 28:19 is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas.Quote Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88–It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus. SORRY. NO CAN DO … THAT IS, I CAN'T VERIFY IT
I came across the same quote a few years ago on the internet & I have it listed as page 83!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
