bible verses changed to support trinity

Starcrystal · May 3, 2004

Saltoearth,
Jesus was created of God
Proverbs 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Please read the entire chapter. Solomon is refering to WISDOM here, NOT Jesus. We've been over this one before in one of the Jehovas Witness threads. Secondly, Wisdom is refered to in the female gender in these chapters. Although Jesus is full of Wison, and was in fact creator of wisdom, using Proverbs 8 to support the "Jesus was created" doctrine is really stretching the scriptures.

Rnmomof7,
Would you say that this describes what you believe?

God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times.* At the incarnation, the mode was the Son.* After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit.**These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous.* In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Rather like I am wife , mom and nurse?

Should baptism be in the name of The Father , the son and the Holy Spirit or only Jesus ?

No, I don't beleive that at all. Certain Oneness people beleive that I think. Christ was in existance prior to his incarnation. So was the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 63:8 - 11 speaks of the LORD (Yahweh/Jehovah) being the saviour, and also mentions "The angel of his presence" (Which some take to mean preincarnate Jesus, and also mentions Gods Holy Spirit twice.
Father, Son & Holy Spirit were manifest simultaneously at Jesus baptism, and at the mount of transfiguration the voice of the father spoke out of heaven while Jesus transfigured before the disciples.
All things were made by the WORD in the beginning, and the Word is Christ, for the WORD became flesh... Through Christ God made the worlds according to Hebrews 1.
So the answer is no: because God was always complete ~ Father, Son & Holy Spirit from the beginning. Not 3, but one. As the body, soul & spirit can separate and appear as 3, yet are still parts of one complete being, so too God manifests in 3 ways, yet is still One. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord."

According to all the accounts of baptism in the book of Acts, baptism is done in the name of Jesus Christ only. Baptising in the name of Jesus covers the baptism in the name of father, Son & Holy Spirit, since Jesus is the embodiment of those 3 titles/manifestations, or "persons" if you so choose to call them "persons."

We are saved by Jesus Christ through faith in HIS NAME, and by the act of his shedding of his blood. Therefore baptism should follow in that example. Matthew 28 mentions baptising in the name of the father, son & Holy Spirit. NAME, not nameS: not plural. What is THE NAME? Then in acts we find on more than one occasion, when baptism is actually performed, every time they are baptised in the NAME of Jesus! This one is REALLY SIMPLE!

jessedance · May 3, 2004

more thoughts on john 1:18

Not only does this corrupt reading clash with the rest of the passage, but it also clashes with John's typical jargon. Nowhere else in John's writings (or the rest of Scripture) can we find the expression "only-begotten God." However, "only begotten Son" is without question a typical Johannine expression.

John 1:14 "only begotten of the Father"
John 1:18 "only begotten Son" (KJV, TR, Majority Text, ECF)
John 3:16 "only begotten Son"
John 3:18 "only begotten Son"
1 John 4:9 "only begotten Son"

John no doubt had the second Psalm in mind when using the expression, "only-begotten Son." Psalm 2:7
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
(KJV)

http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/kjv08.html#03 this is a trinitarian source. even trinitarians , some of them admidt that 'only begotten god' is spurious. . the oldest manuscript with the reading 'only begotten son' is A which dates from 425 ad.further on in the same source

Modern versions are based essentially on modified versions of the Westcott Hort 1881 Greek edition of the New Testament. These go by the names "Nestle's" or "UBS" (United Bible Society). But they are essentially identical to the 1881 text. Westcott and Hort relied heavily on two fourth or fifth century Alexandrian manuscripts, Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus). Basically, these two manuscripts (and two papyrus fragments discovered later, p66 & p75) contain the "only begotten God" reading against all the rest of the New Testament Greek manuscripts, numbering in the thousands. Even the fifth century codex Alexandrinus (A) has "only begotten Son." The Latin Vulgate, which was produced in the 4th century, also contains the "only begotten Son" (unigenetus Filius) reading. So also the Old Latin (Itala).

See, the problem is modern translations are basically based on manuscripts B and ALEPH. Not the thousands of other manuscripts that say' only begotten son' . Please note that a lot of manuscripts that were available when manuscript A was written, which is the earlisest we have that says 'only begotten son' , are no longer in existance. you only got a few old manuscripts that say 'only begotten god'.
john 3:13, as der alter so politely pointed out for me

The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (Ì66,75 Í B L T Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co). [the phrase they lack is 'who is in heaven'........And if v. 13 was viewed in early times as the evangelists statement, the one who is in heaven could have crept into the text through a marginal note. ...... The reading who is in heaven thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission.

Even der alters quotes support the ommission of 'who is in heaven' from john 3:13.
More on matthew 28:19

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 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." http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html

apparantly , even catholics admidt that matthew 28:19 is spurious.

Der Alte · May 4, 2004

jessedance said:
It should be noted that eusebius had accesss to bibles that predate any of the oldest manuscripts that we had. so if the bible eusebius had read math. 28:19 without the triatic formula that would have to mean it was added after eusebius or durring his day. which it was .

as to the question on who the many scholars are, in regards to john 3:13 who suspect the primative error of leaving out son. i can't go back and list every source where i have come upon that. In my "emphasised bible" by Joesph rotherham , he says in a foot note that wescott and hort suspect a primative error and that son was in it originaly.

And you are still posting the same old false nonsense that I have proven wrong over and over again. My quote from NET addressed this junk from Conybeare. Ignored!

And the biggest thing is Eusebius was an Arian, the same as a JW, so trying to prove he was correctly quoting some older more accurate manuscripts is nonsense. Of course, an Arian would leave out verses which support the Trinity. Duh-uh! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As has been stated over and over again but the cults ignore. There is not one single manuscript of Matt 18:19 which does not have Father, Son and Holy spirit. None! Zero! The "only" evidence that cults can provide is Eusebius, an Arian, did not quote it that way in the 4th century. So all the manuscripts must be wrong but the Eusebius, the JW, is right.

Der Alte · May 4, 2004

jessedance said:
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." http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html

Click to expand...

More on matthew 28:19
apparantly , even catholics admidt that matthew 28:19 is spurious.

Well your so-called quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is a pack of lies. But you don’t care because you are not searching for the truth, you are digging through every garbage pile you can find looking for any little bits and pieces, of anything, written by anybody, which you can twist as “proof.” Here for any honest Christian, searching for the truth, is what the real Catholic Encyclopedia says about Baptism, and the triadic formula of Matt 28:19. I have taken the liberty of inserting the dates of the ECF.

The only “proof” anti-Trinitarians have is that their favorite 4th century Arian, early JW, Eusebius, did not include the triadic formula in many of his quotes of that verse. Duh-uh a JW ignoring a Trinitarian verse that is certainly unusual.

But wait, this says the triadic formula was added in the second century in your earlier posts you were stating that you had positive proof that it was added by the Nicene council in 325 AD. If it was added in the second century, 100-199, then Eusebius would have had the triadic Matt 28:19. So at least one of your stories is dead wrong. You decide which one you want to call the truth now JD, and show us some more proof like this. The teachers of false doctrines cannot help but shoot themselves in the foot because they are willing to believe anything and anybody, just so long as it trashes the Trinity.

Catholic Encyclopedia-Baptism

In addition to the necessary word "baptize", or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian [ca. 200, DA] tells us (De Bapt., xiii): "The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." St. Justin Martyr [110-165 AD, DA] (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst., IV) declares: "Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins," St. Cyprian [200-258 AD, DA] (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VI

Starcrystal · May 4, 2004

I think I wish to make this statement so as to clarify EXACTLY what I beleive in regards to the "godhead" ~ although I know some of you don't agree with the word "godhead." This is what I beleive about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

I DO NOT beleive father, Son and Holy Spirit are the SAME person. I beleive they are the same GOD, but most certainly separate INDIVIDUALS within the divine godhead. This can be the only explanation for the "Let US make..." verses in Genesis opening chapters. I DON'T beleive he was speaking to angels since angels had yet to be created, and John 1 & Hebrews 1 bears this out, in that all things are made through Christ who obviously pre-existed before angels were created.

For these reasons when I was accused of being a modalist some weeks ago, I explained by scripture that I was not. Someone then called me a "partial modalist." I responded that people seem to want to label others, and because the person couldn't comprehend what I was trying to explain, chose to label me that.

I beleive God is One. I beleive God does certainly manifest in the 3 individual identities of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I beleive these are distinct from one another. THIS is NOT modalism. Basicly it is trinitarianism without the use of the word "persons" to describe the 3 distinct individual manifestations.

The only reason for this is that I am asserting that Spirit does not have flesh and bones, but is spirit. Jesus himself confirmed this when he said "Handle me, for a spirit has not flesh and bone." Also John 4:24 when he says God is a SPIRIT and they that worship the father shall worship in spirit and in truth.

Although the 3 can manifest separately, are distinct individuals with differing offices, and can manifest simultaneously, they are of One God, interconnected in the spirit realm, though distinctly separate in function both within and outside of that realm. I beleive in the "Trinitarian NATURE" of God, in that there are 3 individual & distinct beings all of whom are God, and interconnected in and by the Spirit. About the only place I don't agree with trinitarian is the use of a word: "persons." Yet I DO beleive God has 3 distinct manifestations.

jessedance · May 4, 2004

as to matthew 28:19 and the eusebian text which predates any smanuscripts we have with matthew 28:19 in them (there is no manuscript extant which contains matthew 28:19 written prior to the council of nicea. nothing, no papyri or anything all we have, on matthew 28:19 prior to the council are the writings of eusebius,and others. some accuse coneybeare of a faulty reading of eusebius, what this is based on I know not ,

"The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between nations and teaching, or in the form make disciples of all the nations in my name, the latter form being the more frequent

."http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html#Evidence%20of%20Eusebius

Then there is the evidence of clement

"In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows:

And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

- Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare.

and origen, whose quote of math. 28:19 was censored..,origen predates eusebius.

"In Origens works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words the nations; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, in my name, struck out." - Conybeare

And Justin maryter,

"In Justin Martyr, who wrote between a.d. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justins dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258:

God hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.

ALSO

"Justin...quotes a saying of Christ...as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19." - Ency. of Religion and Ethics

justin defending baptism in the name of the father son and holy ghost , not on matthew 28:19 but on isaiah and apostolic tradition lends strong creedance to the assertion in the catholic encylopedia that the baptismal formula in math. 28:19 was a latter addition to the gospels. or to put it more bluntly that it was spurious.

jessedance · May 4, 2004

do catholic sources say that matthew 28:19 are spurious? well yes some do but it is not mentioned in discussions of the trinity or baptism in other places.

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,"..."

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html

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 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."

Click to expand...

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html

some would assert that eusebius was arian and that that is why he left the triune formula out of matthew 28:19 but this cannot be for the catholic encylopedia says

The Arians <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm> at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism.

Click to expand...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

jessedance · May 4, 2004

the new english translation notes state in reference to matthew 28:19

28tc Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19, ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that excises this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163-64, 167-75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27-29.

to which i respond that merely stating that conybeare had a faulty reading of eusebius doesn't make it so. all the sources if looked up all have eusebius quoting matthew 28:19 the same way conybeare quotes it. as to jane shaberg and b.j. hubbard i don't have access to their books, so i don't know what their opinions are; consequently i can;t respond to anything they might have said.
in effect there isnt much to respond to about this
i have pointed out that there is no manuscript evidence for anything but the triune formula but this isnt the whole story. no manuscript prior to the council of nicea in 325 a.d. has matthew 28:19 in it. an alternate reading is supported by patristic fathers prior to the council of nicea as i have mentioned. so i feel i have responded quite extensively to the new english translations notes on matthew 28:19.

jessedance · May 4, 2004

Starcrystal said:
This can be the only explanation for the "Let US make..." verses in Genesis opening chapters. I DON'T beleive he was speaking to angels since angels had yet to be created, and John 1 & Hebrews 1 bears this out, in that all things are made through Christ who obviously pre-existed before angels were created.

QUOTE]
here is an explanation for gen.1:26 you may not have heard.

JESSEDANCE said:

SoGen. 1:26,27 is the entire plan of God in germ seed form. It is the "end declared from the beginnning spoken of in Isaiah 46:9,10 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; 10 declaring the END FROM THE BEGINNING, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure
Isaiah 46:9-10 (ASV). Gen 1:26 is prophetic, it was spoken of before the actual event. and it is an apostrophe (spoken to someone who is not there.)
Examples of other apostrophes in the bible would be isaiah 45:1 where God spoke to cyrus 175 years before he was even born, or psalms 2:11 where God speaks to Jesus saying "this day have I begotten thee". That was way before Jesus was even born and god was speaking to him.
gen 1:26 says "make ( heb word here is asah which means to produce through labour) man" Gen. 1:27 says "He created (heb word here is bara which means to create.) These two hebrew words are not synonyms and these two verses aren't refering to the same event. Gen.1:26 is prophecy, and Gen . 1:27 is historical.
Man was created in God's image in that he walks upright,he can speak, he has intelligence, he has dominon over the earth, etc.
Man is made in the image of God in such things as integrety, character, holiness, glory, love, spirituality. All these attributes, which are attributes of God require labor, being made .
You see, god didn't make man instantaneously in his likeness because God wanted man to choose God of his own free will.
"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be MADE RIGHTEOUS." Rom. 5:19 ASV. We are made righteous, legaly and experientaly because of Jesus. Jesus is what God intended to make man into. ". who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;"
Col 1:15 (ASV). Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
"in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the IMAGE OF GOD, should not dawn upon them. "
2 Cor 4:4 (ASV).
"For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the IMAGE of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: "
Romans 8:29 (ASV).
So cleary from these scriptures we see that we are to be in the image of Christ who is the image of God.
We are being made into the image of christ, and therefore the image of God as God prophesised in Gen. 1:26 at the very beginning.
"that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with US: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ:"
1 John 1:3 (ASV). Here we see US as being God and Christ and the church. THis is the US refered to in Gen. 1:26.
"
lie not one to another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings, 10 and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the IMAGE of him that created him:

Col 3:9-10 (ASV)
Here are some verses that show Christ working with God to make man in their image. "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work "
John 4:34 (ASV).
"But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work."
John 5:17 (ASV)
"But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me "
John 5:36 (ASV)
"We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work"
John 9:4 (ASV).
And I could show you more similar verses.
Now I want to show you verses that prove we are co-workers with Christ and God in this effort to make man in OUR IMAGE.
"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen. "
Mark 16:20 (ASV)
"And working together with him we entreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain "
2 Cor 6:1 (ASV)
"For we are God's fellow-workers: ye are God's husbandry, God's building. "
1 Cor 3:9 (ASV)
"
and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen"
Rev 1:6 (ASV).

So you see, Gen 1:26 is no proof of the trinity. Gen.1:26 , when interpreted with scripture and not the nicean creed creates a harmonious doctrine that makes sense

Click to expand...

Starcrystal · May 4, 2004

Jessedance,
Man was created in God's image in that he walks upright,he can speak, he has intelligence, he has dominon over the earth, etc.
Man is made in the image of God in such things as integrety, character, holiness, glory, love, spirituality. All these attributes, which are attributes of God require labor, being made

This is a good verse. We must then also consider that man being made in the image of God has a body, soul, and spirit. He is a tripartite (sp?) being. At death the body turns to dust, but the spirit returns to god who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7) Paul wrote that he hoped for our spirit, soul, and body to be preserved blameless. It is evidenced through near death experiences that the spirit, along with the soul (seat of consciousness & thought) leave the body and often experience things in a spirit realm apart from the body.

This is actually a very good example showing God having 3 individual manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while still being one God. Man, created in the image of God, has these same attributes, though man is limited, whereas God is not. God can manifest as father, Son & Holy Spirit simultaneously, while man would have a very hard time doing so, and seems to only be able to be conscious in one of these forms, even if the spirit separates from the body as it does in an NDE.

Der Alte · May 5, 2004

jessedance said:
(there is no manuscript extant which contains matthew 28:19 written prior to the council of nicea. nothing, no papyri or anything all we have, on matthew 28:19 prior to the council are the writings of eusebius,and others.

Back this up with proof! And I note you have simply ignored the fact that your quote, supposedly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, was totally false, a complete fabrication.

to which i respond that merely stating that conybeare had a faulty reading of eusebius doesn't make it so. all the sources if looked up all have eusebius quoting matthew 28:19 the same way conybeare quotes it. as to jane shaberg and b.j. hubbard i don't have access to their books, so i don't know what their opinions are; consequently i can;t respond to anything they might have said.

What you respond to the NET means diddly squat. When you have read the real sources referenced by the NET, then talk about evidence and proof. As you will see you aren't providing any.

Here are some quotes I copied from lightbearer.org where you are getting most of your so-called evidence. I found these on the same page as your false quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. For someone who is supposed to be showing the rest of us the truth. It is certainly questionable why you are still blindly copy/pasting quotes from a web site which has been proven to be a lies. And here are more.

jessedance said:
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.

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html

Below is the quote in context, showing that it was deliberately selectively quoted and quoted out of context trying to make it say what jessedance and other antis want it to say. The quote above is shown in red. Note in every case there are words before and after the quoted words which directly affect the meaning.

Biblical Doctrine.
1. Origin and Practise:
Conybeare has tried to prove that the original text of Matt. xxviii, 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 ii, 38; viii, 16; xix, 5; Gal. iii, 27; Rom. vi, 3; I Cor. i, 13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. xxviii, 19 and then only again Didache vii, 1 and Justin, Apol., i, 61. It is unthinkable that the Apostolic Church thus disobeyed the express command of the Lord, which it otherwise considered the highest authority. Occurrences like those of Acts xix, 1-7 ought to have shown that the prescribed formula of baptism could not have been shortened to "the name of the Lord Jesus," if the character of baptism was to be retained as commanded. Judging from I Cor. i, 14-17, Paul did, not know Matt. xxviii, 19; otherwise he could not have written that Christ had sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Moreover, had it been known at the Apostolic Council, the missionary spheres could not have been so separated that Peter was recognized as the apostle of the circumcision, Paul and Barnabas as apostles of the heathen (Gal. ii, 7-8); rather would the original apostles have claimed the universal apostolate for themselves. Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula Matt. xxviii, 19 is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas. Nevertheless this baptismal command contains the elements which constitute Christian baptism; for the activity of the Son in baptism implies the immediate cooperation of the Father; and from the beginning Christian baptism has been considered the mediating agency of the Holy Spirit. Therefore while the formal authenticity of Matt. xxviii, 19 must be disputed, it must still be assumed that the later congregations recognized as the will of their Lord that which they experienced as the effect of baptism and traced it back to a direct word of Jesus.

If Matt. xxviii, 19 can not be considered as a baptismal command, we have no direct word of Jesus which institutes baptism; for Mark xvi, 16 belongs to the spurious appendix of the Gospel and is dependent upon Matt. xxviii, 19. But from the very beginning the Christian Church has universally practised baptism (Acts ii, 38; viii, 36, 38; x, 48; I Cor. xii, 13; Gal. iii, 27; Eph. iv, 5; John iii, 5), and must therefore have been convinced that it was acting according to the will of the Lord. The origin of baptism may perhaps be explained as follows: the word of Jesus in Acts i, 5 repeats John the Baptist's prophecy of spiritual baptism (Mark i, 8). Moreover, the farewell discourses in John and the expression epangelia tou pneumatos, which occurs like a technical term in Acts ii, 33; Gal. iii, 14; Eph. i, 13, postulate an utterance of Jesus concerning the gift of the Spirit to the disciples. But Jesus had spoken of baptism as a symbol of the gift of the Spirit. Being filled with the Spirit was for him the antitype of the baptism of John. When the disciples, after the completion of the Messianic work, took up again the baptismal rite which they had formerly practised at his command (John iii, 22; iv, 1, 2) as a preparation for admission into the Messianic congregation, and the Holy Spirit descended upon the baptized, they came to the conviction that they were acting according to the will of their Master and now combined the abovementioned words concerning the Spirit and Christian baptism. Christian baptism has its real root in the baptism of John, not in the sphere of mysterious initiations and lustrations of Greek religious societies, or in the great wave of Babylonian baptism which poured over the civilized countries of that time from the East.

http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc01&page=435&view=png

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."

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html

Here, above, is another quote from the same website. And here, below, is a quote from the real International Standard Bible Dictionary, the entire quote above is a pack of lies. It does not exist in the source cited.

ISBE-III. Difficulties._

1. Are Matt 28:18-20 and Mr 16:15=-16 Genuine?:
Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f) argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matt 28:18-20 is spurious, and that the text in Mr 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. As to the concluding section in Mr (16:9- 20), Jerome is the first to call attention to its omission in most Greek manuscripts to which he had access. But Jerome himself acknowledged Mr 16:14 as genuine. Gregory of Nyssa reports that, while this section is missing in some manuscripts, in the more accurate ones many manuscripts contain it. No doctrinal scruple can arise on account of this section; for it contains nothing that is contrary to the doctrine of Scripture in other places on the same subject; and it has always been treated as genuine by the Christian church. The question is a purely historical one (see Bengel, Apparatus Criticus, 170 f).

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?action=Alpha&letter=B

IV. The Formula of Baptism.

The Formula of Christian baptism, in the mode which prevailed, is given in Mt 28:19:

"I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian baptism until the time of Justin Martyr: and there they are not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended and explanatory form. He says that Christians "receive the washing with water in the name of God, the Ruler and Father of the universe, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit" (1 Apol., 61). In every account of the performance of the rite in apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. * * *

Whatever explanation be given it is plain that the longer formula became universal or almost universal in the sub-apostolic church. Justin Martyr has been already. quoted. Tertullian, nearly half a century later, declares expressly that the "law of baptism has been imposed and the formula prescribed" in Mt 28:19 (De Bapt., 13); and he adds in his Adversus Praxean (c. 26): "And it is not once only, but thrice, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names." The evidence to show that the formula given by Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming; but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogether die out, or, if it did, that it was revived.

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T1148

some would assert that eusebius was arian and that that is why he left the triune formula out of matthew 28:19 but this cannot be for the catholic encylopedia says

Click to expand...

at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism.

Another quote from lightbearer and another lie. The words posted above do not occur anywhere in the article cited. See here, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

You will note that every single quote from the site, linked by jessedance, that I can check, has proven to be false. Some of it is out and out lies. That is the evidence that anti-Trinitarians have in their raging attacks against the historical evangelical church.

As I said before and I repeat now, Jessedance, as with most anti-Trinitarians, is not interested in the truth, but he is only interested in finding anything, written by anybody, whether they have any valid qualifications or not, as long as it trashes the Trinity or other beliefs and practices of the historic church.

Ratiocination · May 5, 2004

Der Alter said:
That is the evidence that anti-Trinitarians have in their raging attacks against the historical evangelical church.

As I said before and I repeat now, Jessedance, as with most anti-Trinitarians, is not interested in the truth, but he is only interested in finding anything, written by anybody, whether they have any valid qualifications or not, as long as it trashes the Trinity or other beliefs and practices of the historic church.

Der Alter, what exactly are these "valid qualifications" you speak of? Are they not the same ones passed from a church to it's members in order to show they have the "truth", How can Qualifications given by people of the same faith prove what the Bible really says? It's always fascinating that trinitatians bully people in this way yet refuse to hear or even debate most of the time whether they are right or not. Fascinating.
Also Mr. Alter I said right at the beginning that i fully respect the Trinity as a church teaching, it's very old and has alot of "support" but the problem comes when you try to claim it's a Bible teaching, that's why people "Trash" it and outright refuse to believe it, it's not the unitarian/monothesist faith set up in the time of moses is it? That same faith that was to have it's fullfilment with the Christian faith, no mention of a change of the "nature" of God. In all honesty you would have to write some very strong and unarguable verses in the Bible to get them to believe otherwise, but as a growing number of people are very well aware there aren't any, None, only verses taken out of context and out right changed in some cases to support it.
The Trinity doctrine of the church hasn't only come under attack in modern times it's always been there, maybe not in the first century when christians were strict monothesists but since then the argument has raged because sincere christians realise it doesn't make sense and it can't be moulded with what Jesus taught us about God and himself, Therefore they refuse to throw away the Bible to suit doctrine and power.
Love.

blessedbe · May 5, 2004

Starcrystal said:
I think I wish to make this statement so as to clarify EXACTLY what I beleive in regards to the "godhead" ~ although I know some of you don't agree with the word "godhead." This is what I beleive about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

I DO NOT beleive father, Son and Holy Spirit are the SAME person. I beleive they are the same GOD, but most certainly separate INDIVIDUALS within the divine godhead. This can be the only explanation for the "Let US make..." verses in Genesis opening chapters. I DON'T beleive he was speaking to angels since angels had yet to be created, and John 1 & Hebrews 1 bears this out, in that all things are made through Christ who obviously pre-existed before angels were created.

For these reasons when I was accused of being a modalist some weeks ago, I explained by scripture that I was not. Someone then called me a "partial modalist." I responded that people seem to want to label others, and because the person couldn't comprehend what I was trying to explain, chose to label me that.

I beleive God is One. I beleive God does certainly manifest in the 3 individual identities of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I beleive these are distinct from one another. THIS is NOT modalism. Basicly it is trinitarianism without the use of the word "persons" to describe the 3 distinct individual manifestations.

The only reason for this is that I am asserting that Spirit does not have flesh and bones, but is spirit. Jesus himself confirmed this when he said "Handle me, for a spirit has not flesh and bone." Also John 4:24 when he says God is a SPIRIT and they that worship the father shall worship in spirit and in truth.

Although the 3 can manifest separately, are distinct individuals with differing offices, and can manifest simultaneously, they are of One God, interconnected in the spirit realm, though distinctly separate in function both within and outside of that realm. I beleive in the "Trinitarian NATURE" of God, in that there are 3 individual & distinct beings all of whom are God, and interconnected in and by the Spirit. About the only place I don't agree with trinitarian is the use of a word: "persons." Yet I DO beleive God has 3 distinct manifestations.

I think that settles it! I understand you, and I agree completely. Will we ever "see" the Holy Spirit? NO. We will see God and Jesus though. I've always struggled with the concept of persons...yet I know that we "use" this word for lack of a a better one.

I do like Matthew 18:19 (which is incidentally being discussed right now)

"Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." ----Obviously, it is the Spirit is who is with them, not Jesus in the flesh, yet Jesus said that "I am with them".

jessedance · May 5, 2004

Starcrystal said:
This is a good verse. We must then also consider that man being made in the image of God has a body, soul, and spirit. He is a tripartite (sp?) being. ......
This is actually a very good example showing God having 3 individual manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while still being one God. Man, created in the image of God, has these same attributes, though man is limited, whereas God is not. God can manifest as father, Son & Holy Spirit simultaneously, while man would have a very hard time doing so, and seems to only be able to be conscious in one of these forms, even if the spirit separates from the body as it does in an NDE.

well , I don''t believe God manifests himself as the son, i believe god manifests himself in the son. verses show that god was in christ, with which im sure your well aware of. Since god was in christ it is only natural that he would manifest himself to the world while being in christ. I mean he wouldn't be in christ in all his fullness and not manifest in some way. god is in me and manifests outwardly at times, and im sure that when i become like christ as the scripture says i will that at that time I too will manifest God in a much more continuous and full manner as did jesus. manifesting as the holy spirit? not sure about that one, I do know that frequently the bible says stuff like 'baptise in spirit unto holy' in the greek and that is translated as "holy spirit'. i believe God is holy and god is spirit as the bible says. therefore he would obviosly be 'the holy spirit' as opposed to other spirits both angelic and demonic.
to me, god manifesting himself takes the form of theophanic manifestations such as when jacob wrestled with god, or god manifesting his presence in a person such as us saints or Jesus. God is refered to as the holy spirit , elohim, yahweh, yahweh jirah, yahweh sid canu, the most high god, adonai, god the father, etc. but i don't see these as different manifestations. different titles , functions and of course his name yahweh''
every thing in the universe can be broken down to its different parts , a car has four wheels, a nation has 300 million people, a fence has 27 posts, a house could have 3 rooms but it wouldn't make it tripartite. ( im not sure what that means exactly).
a friend of mine once said that trintarians look at the bible through what he calls trifocal lenses, so that they see trinity in every verse.

Starcrystal · May 5, 2004

Blessedbe,
"Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." ----Obviously, it is the Spirit is who is with them, not Jesus in the flesh, yet Jesus said that "I am with them".

True. Here's another example of Christ manifest through the Holy Spirit.

Jessedance,
tripartite. ( im not sure what that means exactly).

Basically 3 parts of one being but having distinct offices, actions, individualities. Not "persons" but all being exuded from one, part of the one, though they can appear separately and have individuality. (Hope that defines it well enough! )

jessedance · May 5, 2004

deralter said:
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.

well , someone saying the trinity formula is genuine and conybeare is wrong isnt any proof. this passage doesnt say what the 'research' is.

DERALTER said:
In every account of the performance of the rite in apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. * * *

but this passage continues on saying,

In every account of the performance of the rite in apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+2:38>); and the same formula was used at the baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him (Acts 10:48 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+10:48>). Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians: "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+1:13>). The Samaritans were baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+8:16>); and the same formula (a common one in acts of devotion) was used in the case of the disciples at Ephesus. In some instances it is recorded that before baptism the converts were asked to make some confession of their faith, which took the form of declaring that Jesus was the Lord or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. It may be inferred from a phrase in 1 Peter 3:21 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1pe+3:21> that a formal interrogation was made, and that the answer was an acknowledgment that Jesus Christ was Lord. Scholars have exercised a great deal of ingenuity in trying to explain how, with what appear to be the very words of Jesus given in the Gospel of Mt, another and much shorter formula seems to have been used throughout the apostolic church.

well, you can't explain away a contradiction no matter how much ingenuity one exercises. and saying in one verse to baptise in the name of the father son and holy ghost and in 6 other verses saying 'baptise in Jesus name' is a contradiction.

The Arians <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm> at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tamperwith the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VIed

DERALTER said:
Another quote from lightbearer and another lie. The words posted above do not occur anywhere in the article cited. See here,

This was said in reference to my quote from the catholic encylopedia showing that they believe the arians upheld the baptism in the triatic formula.

No, it was a quote from the catholic encylopedia web site. guess i should have said exactly where on that page. look in

VI. MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT

(2) Form paragraph 3 to find

The Arians <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm> at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#V

Below is the quote in context, showing that it was deliberately selectively quoted and quoted out of context trying to make it say what jessedance and other antis want it to say.

No, i saw no need to quote things they were saying that contradicted other things they were saying.

der alter said:
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 ii, 38; viii, 16; xix, 5; Gal. iii, 27; Rom. vi, 3; I Cor. i, 13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. xxviii, 19 and then only again Didache vii, 1 and Justin, Apol., i, 61.

this in my opinion is faulty reasoning. saying that jesus didnot give the trinity order of baptism after his resurection and saying paul didn't know of the trinity order of baptism and concluding therefore it is in the original text says to me that they are confussed as to what the facts they have mean. also, there only support for the trinity order of baptism is saying that

But since the investigations of Riggenbach, the ordinary reading may be considered the original.

is no proof, they don't say what riggenbach found that proves the trinity order of baptism is the original . what did riggenbach come up with that proves the trinity reading is the original? they don't say. again they seem very confussed with their information. they seem to be trying to say both that the trinity formula for baptism is both in the original and isnt.besides elsewhere they say,

Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula Matt. xxviii, 19 is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas.........Therefore while the formal authenticity of Matt. xxviii, 19 must be disputed,it must still be assumed that the later congregations

so we see they are basing the authenticity of the triune formula in matthew 28:19 upon an assumption that if latter congreagations d id it it must be true. faulty reasonin , imo. also, the quotes in red should lead one to conclude that math28:19 is a forgery, not that it is authentic. again they exibit in my estimation , faulty reasoning.

jessedance · May 5, 2004

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."

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html
to which der alter responded;

DER ALTER said:
the entire quote above is a pack of lies. It does not exist in the source cited.

Assuming that something quoted is a lie because one can't find it is not the first assumption I would jump to. i think usually its we can't find it in the source or its an earlier encylopedia that was refered to, or perhaps they misquoted their source. Lieing would be my last assumption because it would be too easily discovered on the internet. and i never assume that trinitarian sources that i read are lieing , even though i disagree with them. i strongly feel they misinterpret their facts of course.likewise i never assume oneness sources or jw sources are lieing because I may disagree with some of their conclusions.
its in vol. 4 , page 2637 under the heading of sacrements 3. instituted of christ.

that 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 "foreign to the mouth of Jesus" (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given).

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T7547
the articles on baptism are what lutherans and baptists and non immersionist believe. the ISBE in the above quote, is showing that some believe math 28:19 to be spurious.

jessedance · May 5, 2004

at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism.

DER ALTER said:
Another quote from lightbearer and another lie. The words posted above do not occur anywhere in the article cited. See here, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

you just couldn't find it. look in VI. MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT
(2) Form paragraph 3 to find it.
shooting from the hip?

jessedance · May 5, 2004

ok, found another catholic source that says math. 28:19 is a latter addition. it's the footnote to matthew 28;19 in the new american bible, which is a catholic bible. a new one. about 1978 i think.

...some regard these words as an interpretation of Jesus' final instructions in the light of the church's early change from a mission to the jews to one in behalf of the gentiles,......the baptismal formula reflets the church's gradual understanding of God as three Persons.......

In other words they are saying that when Paul came along and started preaching to the gentiles the church changed from baptism in Jesus name to triune god . the baptismal formula, i.e. 'baptise in the name of the father son and holy ghost', in that it is a latter addition reflects the church's gradual change from 'in jesus name' to ' the triatic formula.'
its kinda hidden but if you search you can find even catholic sources saying matthew 28:19 is a forgery, or words to that effect.

jessedance · May 5, 2004

ok, i should have said look under sacrement in the catholic encylopedia. thats where it is.

bible verses changed to support trinity

Sheep in Wolves clothing

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Sheep in Wolves clothing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sheep in Wolves clothing

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Senior Member

Learning everyday!

Well-Known Member

Sheep in Wolves clothing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency