• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Trinity.

Discussion in 'Christian History' started by GuardianShua, Feb 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GuardianShua

    GuardianShua Well-Known Member

    +266
    Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: THE 1968 EDITION, Introduction to Christianity: By Joseph Ratzinger. page 82-83.

    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 of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.
    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 that 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.

    Matthew 28:19. N.I.V.
    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

    Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it is today in our modern Bibles, but he always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
    But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

    And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
    What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

    There is not a single occurrence of the disciples baptizing anyone useing the Trinitarian formula. All of the scripture in the New Testament shows that people were baptized into the name of Jesus, even after Pentecost.

    And when people in church leadership recieved the Holy Spirit, it was without the Trinitarian formula as in Acts 8:17.
    Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. E.C.

    E.C. Well-Known Member

    +455
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Engaged
    Read the Didache.
     
  3. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura Forever Newbie

    +936
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Constitution
    What if someone does not wish to turn to nor especially trust Ratzinger as authoritative for dating the text of Matthew, then what?
     
  4. GuardianShua

    GuardianShua Well-Known Member

    +266
    The date is not an issue.
     
  5. Epiphoskei

    Epiphoskei Senior Veteran

    +641
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    There isn't a single greek text omitting the trinitarian formula as far as my Greek Bible tells me. It was part of the original text. That quote is either baseless or misinterpreted. I'd want the context before I made that determination.
     
  6. onwingsaseagles

    onwingsaseagles Well-Known Member

    +72
    Christian
    Married
    THE TRINITY: Most churches today teach that God is one God, eternally existing as three persons. They are the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, they teach that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, that the Son is not Father nor the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son but that they are three seperate persons working in perfect unity to create one God. I disagree, I do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, I do not believe they are seperate beings or persons.
    I believe God is one uni-personal God ''The Father'',who became a man "The Son'' who is a spirit ''The Holy Spirit''.


    JESUS IS FULLY GOD: Jesus is God, completely God, he is God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, not one-third God (God the Son). Most churches teach Jesus to be God the Son. Yet, they insist that he is fully God and fully man, but if you relegate Jesus to just the Son, then he is not fully God if God is Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.If you have 3 parts that make 1 whole then 1 of those parts would be 1/3 of the whole. Jesus refered to himself as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit on seperate occasions. References to Jesus refering himself as the Father: John 14:7-9 and as the Holy Spirit: John 14:16-18


    DISTINGUISHING JESUS FROM THE FATHER: If Jesus was God, and if God is one then why does there seem to be a distinction between the Father and Jesus. Paul seperated them in every epistle he wrote. Look at Romans 1:1-4, I Corinthians 1:3, II Corinthians 1:2-3, Galatians 1:3-4, Ephesians 1:2-3, Philippians 1:2,Colossians 1:2-3, I Thessalonians 1:1, II Thessalonians 1:1-2, I Timothy 1:2, II Timothy 1:1-2, Titus 1:4, Philemon 1:3.
    You see Jesus is God, fully God, 1 Timothy 1:1 and Titus 2:13 he was also man, fully man made in every way like unto us. Hebrews 2:17
    It was the man Jesus Christ that was born of Mary as the Son of God. He lived as an example to show us how to live. He remained sinless, died for our sins, rose again in a glorified body, ascended to the Father and is now sitting on the right hand of God. References: Romans 1:3-4, II Corinthians 5:16-19, Ephesians 1:20-21, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:21-22, Timothy 2:5-6,
    The man Jesus Christ chose to remain sinless, and died for our sins but it was God the Father who chose to become a man. St. John 1:1-3 & 14, The distinction between Jesus and the Father does not seperate God the Father from God the Son. It does separate Jesus' divinity from his humanity. His humanity was the Son of God and his divinity was God, the Father himself.
    The incarnation of God was actual and permanent. The man Jesus Christ will never cease to exist, just as you and I will never cease to exist and He will always be distinguished from the Father.


    JESUS WAS FULLY MAN: I have not heard many explanations on this subject except that Jesus was fully man. What does that consist of? What is the differance between the Son of God and the Son of man?Which is Jesus?The answer would be that was the Son of God. The Son of God was the man Jesus Christ who, although was born free of original sin, had a sinfulnature ( the flesh ). Yet, he was also fully God. Free of original sin but capeable of it. He lived a sinless life, becomming a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world.


    THE DOCTRINE OF ONENESS: God is one and has always been one. Jesus is the man God became. Jesus did not exist before incarnation as God the Son. In His pre-incarnate state, He existed as the Father, God Himself. Now the two of them are in heaven together, God the Father and the man he became, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The problem is that when I say the Father became a man people think it means I believe he stopped being an eternal spirit after incarnation and that heaven was empty. This is not what I believe.God the Father continued to exist as a transendant, unlimited spirit, while also becoming a man. The Father did not become confined to a human existence. It is not as though the omnipresent spirit of God transformed himself into a man, to the exclusion of his existence as the Holy spirit.
    When God assumed a human existance with a complete human mind, psyche, will, and emotion etc. He was distinct from the Father while he continued to exist as the Father in heaven. As a genuine human being, Jesus was and is distinct from the Father. This is because of HIs humanity not because he is the second person of the Trinity. While I confess that the deity of the Son did pre-exist incarnation, I do not see that deity as the second person of the Trinity, known as " God the Son ", and separate from the Father or Holy Spirit, but rather as the uni-personal God of the old testament. Yahweh, the Father, the Great I Am.
    Concerning the Holy Spirit, I believe He is the Spirit of God the Father and not a separate person of the Trinity, the third person known as " God the Holy Spirit. " The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, He is the spirit of the Father, He is the spirit of Christ. God is a spirit, the Holy Spirit. There is one God not three, nor are there three persons that create one God. He is one uni-personal God that He himself became flesh. There is no such person as God the son nor God the Holy Spirit but God the Father, the son of God and the spirit of God.
     
  7. BigNorsk

    BigNorsk Contributor

    +754
    Lutheran
    Married
    The NET has a footnote concerning the issue giving references.

    28 tc 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 Mat_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 removes 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.

    Note: SBLDS is Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
     
  8. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura Forever Newbie

    +936
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Before I'm misunderstood, let me preface my understanding of this with the following, I am trinitarian. I have no problem with the theology of the Trinity.

    Having said that, I feel the Church has erred in practicum in its teaching on this doctrine. Most people do not think theologically, and truthfully, I prefer not to have my theology derive from rationality but rather I wish to base its truth upon scriptural authority not "this-and-that-father-of-the-Church-explained-it-like-this...".

    For me, when we approach the Bible and induct what it says about God's essential nature we uncover that God's nature is sevenfold:

    1. God is one
    2. The Father, He is God
    3. The Son, He is God
    4. The Holy Spirit, He is God
    5. The Father sends forth the Son
    6. The Father and Son send forth the Holy Spirit
    7. The Father is sent by no one

    The Bible asserts the above-referenced 7 propositions though we may choose to verbalize these with different terminolgy.

    I think this is an approach that would have prevented some folks from stumbling on the pure rationality of the Trinity doctrine.

    I think the Pope overplays the import of the Church in determining the content of the words of Christ. For me, Christ commissioned the Church in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
     
  9. GuardianShua

    GuardianShua Well-Known Member

    +266
    Bumping for posters.
     
  10. revanneosl

    revanneosl Mystically signifying since 1985

    +1,383
    Methodist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat


    Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger did write that in 1963. It was common knowledge then as it is common knowledge now. No legitimate biblical scholar disputes this.

    The trinitarian baptismal formula was indeed a post-apostolic development. It took quite some time for the church to figure out what had happened in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. This was such an enormous and significant happening in human history, it should come as no surprise to anyone that it took a while for the church to figure it out.

    It is absolutely dishonest to characterize theological developments prior to the year 1243 as "Roman Catholic". There was no Roman Catholic Church prior to that year. There was only the church. Just one. With loads and loads of disagreements about all sorts of things.

    And the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't an "invention". It was, properly speaking, a "discovery" by humans of something which God had been up to all along.



    Yep. As I said - it took a while for the church to figure out the Trinity. Ideas don't drop from heaven sealed in holy Gladbags. They grow and change, as smart men & women sit and think and talk and write.

    The only way you learn anything is by changing your mind.

    Grace & Peace to you.
     
  11. larry_boy_44

    larry_boy_44 Member

    422
    +14
    Pentecostal
    Single
    being "Oneness" and hearing this kind of debate ad nauseum all my life... I've come to a few conclusions:

    1. We'd all be better off if we just went with what we agreed with because if you break down what we actually believe, its identical other than a few words that barely have any meaning in the context they are using (i.e. "person", it isn't meaning "person" like "I am a person, and my earthly father is a person")

    2. probably another thread, but I don't understand the appeal of not baptizing in Jesus name when its admitted that the early church only baptized that way... It just doesn't seem "worth it" to me what with all the writings about "one baptism" and "the only name given under heaven by which we might be saved" and whatnot...

    3. Neither side really understands the other sides' positions. When I talk with trinitarians about it, I have to correct them on what Oneness people actually believe (referring to Oneness Pentecostals... I don't know about anyone else lol). When I talk to people who beileve like I do, I have to basically teach them what the Trinity means and where it comes from because all they've ever been told was misinformation with a few speckles of truth added...

    its just dumb, we'd be better off without the controversy. Especially sincethe vast majority of the controversy is over nothing but the "name" of the doctrine...
     
  12. larry_boy_44

    larry_boy_44 Member

    422
    +14
    Pentecostal
    Single
    What about all that stuff about "if anyone preaches a different gospel they are damned" or "one lord, one faith, one baptism", etc.???

    I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me to discard something people I absolutely, 100% know were correct in favor of something that someone who I don't absolutely 100% know were correct did...

    I know what Paul and Peter and the rest of them did was right. I don't know if the people who were around 100 years later were absolutely right...

    It just seems like a stupid and unnecessary risk to go with anything but what the original church did...
     
  13. revanneosl

    revanneosl Mystically signifying since 1985

    +1,383
    Methodist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    Any professional historian will tell you that nobody can possibly know for sure "what the original church did".

    Anybody who tells you that they actually know that is either lying or deluding themselves.

    Nobody knows "what the original church did" or thought about anything.

    Under the mercy and mystery of God's love, there are no risks, unnecessary or otherwise.
     
  14. larry_boy_44

    larry_boy_44 Member

    422
    +14
    Pentecostal
    Single
    in terms of the entirety of what they taught... you are absolutely correct...

    But in terms of certain aspects (baptism in Jesus name, the fact that the trinity wasn't developed yet (Tertullian & Justin Martyr I believe are the earliest ones who mention ideas that resemble the trinity explicitly), and I'm sure others) you are actually very, very, very incorrect... We know quite a bit about what the church taught in the first century.
     
  15. GuardianShua

    GuardianShua Well-Known Member

    +266
    Are you suggesting that Constantine the Great was divinely inspired and reveled that mystery to man?
     
  16. GuardianShua

    GuardianShua Well-Known Member

    +266
    [​IMG]
    Above is the picture of the statue Jupiter renamed Peter giving a trinity sign. Jupiter is also holding the key to heaven. Now I ask you, why is the statue of Jupiter giving a trinity sign and holding the key to heaven? The statue is older than Christianity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  17. stone

    stone Senior Contributor Supporter

    +427
    Catholic
    Married
    you must believe the word of Jesus
     
  18. JacktheCatholic

    JacktheCatholic Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

    +2,256
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    As I stated previously in the Unorthodox thread you posted this same post...

    A Key to a kingdom was understood by many cultures to be a sign of authority and was not exclusive to Christianity. Also this statue holds one key and in Matthew 16 we are told Peter received the KeyS. As to the hand jesture that is not a "trinity sign". It could be many things...

    Your statue is of Jupiter and is completely unrelated to Chrisitnaity and Peter. Why do you even try to pull the wool over people's eyes with this?
     
  19. GuardianShua

    GuardianShua Well-Known Member

    +266
    According to my Exhaustive Concordance the word key-s can be singular or plurl. Being a Christian I do know what the secret trinity sign is. I also see the Pope give that same sign all of the time. Matthew 16:19 looks like a Gnostic corruption of scripture. The statement is not logical, nor does it jive with scripture. Neither is it affirmed in the Old or New Testament.
     
  20. JacktheCatholic

    JacktheCatholic Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

    +2,256
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I think you are seeing into something that simply is not there...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...