The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

[moralorel]

This is very true in my experience. I used to hang around with some very political people. I saw numerous debates where there was a clear loser but I never saw anybody change their mind.

So many times I have had friends say that they would never vote for someone who is a liar. But they vote for liars. Never made sense to me.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It contradicts the scripture that it is supposed to represent.

Most people's opinions are more important to them than scripture.

So how does one tell?
Is there a clear reading of scripture on every doctrine, that dissenters are merely ignoring?
Or do they in fact have plausible counterarguments?

 

[moralorel]

So how does one tell?
Is there a clear reading of scripture on every doctrine, that dissenters are merely ignoring?
Or do they in fact have plausible counterarguments?

They could read and study scripture for themselves. This could be its own thread I suppose.

Let me give you a common example. Now and then we hear of some church that has a "prophet" who believes that the Earth will end on a specific date. They make the claim that God has let them know the exact date and time (no word on if it's ET, CT, or PT). Their believers blindly believe them, even though scripture makes it quite clear that no man or woman knows the date and time. Only the Father. Even Jesus doesn't know. Yet so many people have fallen for this obvious lie. But they ignore scripture because they really really really want to believe.

The Bible isn't exactly an easy book to read. I have used the example of Dante's Divine Comedy as a book that is difficult to read and is often misinterpreted. There are reasons why some universities have a class dedicated just to that book. It takes a long time to research the original Italian and to research the people who are mentioned in his classic book.

The Bible is even more difficult. It was written over a long period of time, was written by multiple authors, written in multiple languages, etc. I would think someone could create a college course just about the many idioms found in the Bible. So if someone wants to prove a doctrine, they are going to have to read and do some research.

There is no black and white answer to every doctrine. But I'm just pointing out how human nature interferes with people's quest for truth.

 

[TheLightWithin]

They could read and study scripture for themselves.

The Bible isn't exactly an easy book to read.

The Bible is even more difficult. It was written over a long period of time, was written by multiple authors, written in multiple languages, etc

There is no black and white answer to every doctrine.

Precisely.

What do you think is the best criteria for who has the best argument?

Denominations accuse each other of misreading or misinterpreting the bible, and even of not reading it.

My grandfather used to say that ALL of the regular churches - "didn't teach what was in the bible at all" and that all of their beliefs were distorted mistaken or wrong, and that his denomination - the Herbert Armstrong led World Wide Church of God, was "the one true church" that actually read the bible where other churches had ideas that weren't really attached to the bible. I more or less took him at his word while simultaneously taking it all with a grain of salt. When I read the bible as a teenager, I kept wondering "how do people even begin to draw conclusions much less beliefs from anything here?" I guess I might have expected it to read like a catechism or something.

Why isn't a full catechism simply included in the bible as part of it? Didn't any prophet write one? Does anybody know why not?

 

[moralorel]

Precisely.

What do you think is the best criteria for who has the best argument?

Denominations accuse each other of misreading or misinterpreting the bible, and even of not reading it.

My grandfather used to say that ALL of the regular churches - "didn't teach what was in the bible at all" and that all of their beliefs were distorted mistaken or wrong, and that his denomination - the Herbert Armstrong led World Wide Church of God, was "the one true church" that actually read the bible where other churches had ideas that weren't really attached to the bible. I more or less took him at his word while simultaneously taking it all with a grain of salt. When I read the bible as a teenager, I kept wondering "how do people even begin to draw conclusions much less beliefs from anything here?" I guess I might have expected it to read like a catechism or something.

Why isn't a full catechism simply included in the bible as part of it? Didn't any prophet write one? Does anybody know why not?

Best criteria? I don't have one. But when it comes to any argument, this is what I notice.
1. The one who speaks the loudest is probably wrong.
2. Likewise the one who listens the least is probably wrong.
3. The one who resorts to insults is probably wrong.
4. The one who deflects is probably wrong.
5. The one who is dishonest is probably wrong.
6. The one who can't find evidence to back their claim is probably wrong.
7. The one using circular reasoning is probably wrong.

I think you get the point.

As far as doctrine is concerned, that very well could be another thread. The best advice I can give is that if you believe in something, try to disprove it. If you let your beliefs be challenged you will come out stronger. But there is so much to unravel here.

Ah yes, Mr. Armstrong. He tried disproving his Quaker wife's statement about the Sabbath and came out with a completely different outlook on the Bible. In the end they both abandoned their old beliefs after reading the Bible. I have had plenty of arguments and discussions with people from that church and its offshoots. The thing I do like about them is that they tend to have a decent biblical background. But some still hang on every word that man said. Or even the words of some of the popular ministers of old.

 

[TheLightWithin]

But some still hang on every word that man said.

Yes even with everything that happened to the WCG there are still several remnant spinoffs that maintain some degree of Armstrong doctrines.
I'm partial to them for sure. Always on the lookout for them.

 

[Base12]

So how does one tell?
Is there a clear reading of scripture on every doctrine, that dissenters are merely ignoring?
Or do they in fact have plausible counterarguments?

This is precisely why I use Science, Biology, Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Human Anatomy etc. as a type of error correcting code to verify the different claims out there and to find the deeper meanings in Scripture. The Bible actually teaches us to do this. Unfortunately, most do not follow the instructions.

Because I have followed the instructions, I am able to see light years ahead of the average Bible Student. Once all of the lies, mistakes, disinfo, misinfo, etc. are taken out the equation using the prescribed method, Truth can be found with relative ease.

So, to answer your question, yes there is a clear reading. It is called the literal interpretation. Sadly, most are taught to ignore the literal interpretation because it goes against established dogma.

Genesis 2:17 is a perfect example. Christians are told to change the words to make the verse say something it does not. It just gets worse from there. As far as I know, I am the only person on the planet that believes the literal interpretation of Genesis 2:17. Yet, I am treated like the Devil himself for believing my Bible.

The bottom line is that there is a Spirit at work keeping folks from finding out what the Bible really teaches. This is a real thing I run into all the time. It is an extremely difficult battle to win.

 

[A Freeman]

In addition to over 50 references to Christ being the Son of God (i.e. the created offspring of God), over 80 references to Jesus (the son of Mary whom Christ incarnated 2000 years ago) being the "Son of Man" (something God Himself said He could NEVER be), over 50 references to Christ being sent by God, and numerous references made by Christ that He is only a Servant of God, we have Christ's own words and example of worshiping, praying to, glorifying and giving all of the credit to Father.

In fact, there are almost 200 verses referring to Father in the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and not one single verse referring to "the trinity" or to "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" -- and that includes Matthew 28:19, where that wording was very obviously ADDED to the original text by the Roman Catholic church, just as they did in 1 John 5:7-8.

IF there was such a thing as a "trinity", as we find in ancient Babylonian paganism, and this is allegedly some critically important doctrine (even though it's found nowhere in the Bible), as most "Christians" have been duped into believing, then why didn't Christ ever talk about it? We have almost 200 verses below which presented a golden opportunity to promote the so-called "trinity" doctrine, and yet Christ ALWAYS gave credit instead to Father, Whom Christ plainly stated (at least 7 times) is Christ's God.

References made by Jesus in the Gospel accounts to His Father and His God:-


Matthew (42)
5:16; 5:44-45; 5:48; 6:1; 6:4-18; 6:26; 6:32; 7:11; 7:21-24; 10:17-20; 10:28-33; 11:25-27; 12:50; 13:41-43; 15:13-14; 16:15-17; 16:27; 18:10; 18:14; 18:19; 18:35; 19:16-17; 20:23; 23:9; 24:36; 25:34; 26:29; 26:39; 26:42; 26:53-54

Mark (6)
8:38; 10:17-18; 11:25-26; 13:32; 14:36

Luke (17)
1:32; 2:49; 6:36; 9:26; 10:21-22; 11:2; 12:28-32; 18:18-19; 22:29-30; 22:41-42; 23:34; 23:46; 24:49

John (134)
1:14; 1:18; 2:16; 3:34-36; 4:21-24; 5:16-47; 6:27-29; 6:32-40; 6:44-46; 6:57; 6:65; 8:7-10 (8:16-19 KJV); 8:16-23 (8:25-55 KJV); 10:14-38; 11:40-42; 12:26-30; 12:48-50; 13:1-3; 14:1-2; 14:6-7; 14:9-16; 14:20; 14:23-31; 15:1; 15:8-10; 15:15-16; 15:23-27; 16:2-3; 16:10; 16:15-17; 16:23-32; 17; 18:11; 20:17; 20:21

(first three references from above)

Matthew 5:16 Let your Light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 5:44-45
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven IS perfect.
Christ repeatedly and consistently defined God as Father; specifically as His Father and His God (John 20:17; Rev. 3:12). Christ NEVER defined God as a "trinity", nor did Christ pray to a "trinity" (only to His Father), nor did Christ ever claim to be anything other than the created Son of God.

Why then do so many "Christians" attempt to redefine God as some pagan 3=1 nonsensical "trinity" (three but not three...one, but not one...etc.)? Do these "Christians" not realize that in so doing, they are proving they know neither Father nor His Christ?

John 17:3 And THIS is Life Eternal, that they might KNOW Thee the ONLY True God, and Christ the Saviour, whom Thou hast sent.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Please note well you haven't (and cannot) produce a verse where anyone is clearly baptizing "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", which should give you reason for pause.

I provided the verse which you rejected based on false translation.i was having problems finding this King of Kings translation. The one I did find had the KJV but missing or changed verses. It added the apocrypha and the Quran. If you don't see a problem with that then I don't think I can continue in this conversation as it will just go round and round.

BTW copy and pasting large texts without providing sources is frowned upon.

 

[A Freeman]

Actually, it's not, because my faith does not depend upon my being able to prove it to you.

I don't see it as 'complete and total nonsense' and I find your assumption that because you don't believe it, the burden is mine, is silly.

It makes sense to me, and I can argue it reasonably, rationally, and logically.

If that were true, then you should be able to show us definitively where Christ-Jesus prayed to the "trinity" or claimed to be equal to God or told us that God was 3 in 1, etc.

Conversely, hundreds of verses have been provided which plainly state that Jesus was the Son of Man (something that God said He could never be), and that Christ is the Son of God (where the son is the created offspring of the Father), and where Christ was sent by Father, and where Christ called Father His God, etc.

Anyone ignoring the mountain of evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt there is ONE True God: the "I AM", and ONE Mediator between God and mankind (Christ - 1 Tim. 2:5) and that we share the same God with Christ, will continue in ignorance, whether they spiritually "see" that or not. Those humble enough to ask Father to help break through the religious superstitions and programming, will take a step closer to Father and be blessed for it (James 4:8).

 

[A Freeman]

I provided the verse which you rejected based on false translation.i was having problems finding this King of Kings translation. The one I did find had the KJV but missing or changed verses. It added the apocrypha and the Quran. If you don't see a problem with that then I don't think I can continue in this conversation as it will just go round and round.

BTW copy and pasting large texts without providing sources is frowned upon.

It's your translation that is false, and you were even provided the evidence that trinitarian phraseology was very obviously added to it, just as it was with 1 John 5:6-8. That's why NONE of the disciples or apostles ever baptized in "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", because Jesus NEVER actually told them to do that.

With regard to the evidence that has been personally shared, it is intentionally thorough because people do what you did, i.e. post a single verse and try to claim that one very obviously tampered with verse that doesn't agree with anything else in Scripture is somehow proof of an anti-Biblical (anti-Christ) doctrine.

Christ is the LITERAL Son of God. Christ was NOT sent to role play as a pretended son that is allegedly part of a 3=1 "trinity".

1 John 2:22 (KJV) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

 

[A Freeman]

Christ, the CREATED Son OF God, the Firstborn of every creature.


There are NUMEROUS verses that tell us that Christ is, IN TRUTH, the FIRST of all CREATED Beings, i.e. MADE by God, giving Christ the position of preeminence over the other angels (Christ's BRETHREN), as would be expected for the FIRSTBORN.

Colossians 1:12-18
1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, Which hath made us meet to be sharers of the inheritance of the holy people in Light:
1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the Kingdom of His dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature:
1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for him:
1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
1:18 And he is the head of the body, the community: who is THE BEGINNING, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell*;

*Which is why Father (God) made/created His Dear Son, known here on Earth as Christ, FIRST; i.e. Christ was the BEGINNING of the creation of God.

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, THE BEGINNING of the creation OF God;

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the House of Israel know ASSUREDLY, that God hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who by God is MADE unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption:

2 Corinthians 5:20-21
5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] through us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
5:21 For He hath MADE him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God through him.

Romans 8:14-17
8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the (adopted) sons of God.
8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit (Being), that we (our Beings) are the children of God:
8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ**; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Hebrews 1:1-4
1:1 God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [His] Son, whom He hath APPOINTED heir** of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;
1:3 Who being the brightness of [His] glory, and the express IMAGE of His person, and upholding all things by the Word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of His Majesty on high;
1:4 Being MADE so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

**Note: Someone cannot be the heir of their own estate. According to Father's Law, the FIRSTBORN SON receives a double-portion relative to his brethren as the primary heir to the dad's estate, being considered the beginning of the dad's strength (Deut. 21:17). All the firstborn belong to Father (Num. 3:13), beginning with His Christ (Rev. 3:14), The One God Anointed (Luke 4:18, Acts 10:38), The Firstborn Son OF God (Col. 1:15), and Heir to The Kingdom OF God (Heb. 1:2), making Christ The Great Prince (Dan. 10:21, Dan. 12:1). The firstborn son of the king is heir to the kingdom (2 Chronicles 21:1-3), and is referred to as the prince.

Hebrews 2:9-11
2:9 But we see the Saviour, who was MADE a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
2:10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to MAKE the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them BRETHREN,

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be MADE like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 5:5-11
5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be MADE The High Priest; but He that said unto him, Thou art My Son, to day have I incarnated thee.
5:6 As He saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
5:9 And being MADE perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
5:10 Called BY God an High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

Hebrews 6:20 Where the forerunner is for us entered, [even] Jesus, MADE The High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:15-17
7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest,
7:16 Who is MADE, not after The Law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless Life.
7:17 For He testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26 For such an High Priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and MADE higher than the heavens;

 

[Thomas]

Not clear at all. In fact it's saying the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

Well if it's not clear to you, you're not sure what I am saying.

 

[RabbiO]

I provided the verse which you rejected based on false translation.i was having problems finding this King of Kings translation....

A Freeman has touted the King of Kings version of the Bible as the complete and accurate translation of scripture. Putting aside for the moment that such claim is false, at least as far as Hebrew scripture is concerned, you should check out the website of the person or organization behind that version. If you don't have it, private message me and I will provide it to you.

Besides supporting some very, to put charitably, odd ideas, it is among other things one of the most virulent anti-Jewish websites I have come across. And there is more if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

Some of the other members here who are also members of another forum I post on may remember him. He did not last long there

 

[Thomas]

Please note well you haven't (and cannot) produce a verse where anyone is clearly baptizing "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", which should give you reason for pause.

Matthew 28:18-20
"And, approaching, Jesus spoke to them, saying, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, instruct all the gentiles, baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and see: I am with you every day until the consummation of the age.”

Herein the argument, distilled from the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange:
The position in the question, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not original to Matthew 28:19 is held today by very few scholars.

Those who do point to a quotation from Eusebius, who in Demonstratio 3.6, replaces "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "my name." This was written around 312-318CE.

This is reasonably assumed to be a direct quote from the copy of Matthew he was using, and a later conclusion was then reached that the long version of Matthew 28:19 is an addition, and that the shorter Eusebian version was purposefully suppressed.

The originality of the short version of the verse fails in regards to both physical/manuscript evidence and logic.

Manuscript Evidence I: Matthew
Critics if the Trinitarian doctrine claim there is a mountain of historical evidence, there actually isn't.

No manuscript of Matthew is known that has the short form of the verse. Even though the critical texts used by scholars lay out all kinds of textual variants throughout the NT, none lists v19. Text variants of 18 and 20 and noted, but none for 19. Beyond Greek, all ancient translations, eg Latin or Syriac, have the long reading of Matthew.

Bart Ehrman, neither a Christian nor a trinitarian, agrees that the long form of the verse is original in a letter to a correspondent:
" ... The reasons people like Petersen have suspected that Matthew 28:19-20 were not original are (1) the verses sound like they embrace the later doctrine of the trinity and (2) they are not found in Eusebius’s quotations. Most scholars have not been convinced, however, primarily because the verses are found in every solitary manuscript of Matthew, whether Greek, Latin, or …. any other ancient language, and are cited by yet other church fathers. Most interpreters think that the later doctrine of the trinity is not necessarily implied by the verses, but that they are simply read that way by people who know about the trinity. But in any event, most textual scholars think that the verses are almost certainly original to Matthew. Hope this helps — Bart Ehrman"

+++

With regard to Eusebius –

1. Eusebius' short form ... is the only textual evidence for the short reading
2. Eusebius tends to abbreviate elsewhere
3. Eusebius quotes the long form in Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; and Theophania 4.8

It is worth noting that Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, where he is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However...
Eusebius writes: "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth."
Whereas the full text is: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"

+++

Manuscript Evidence II: Quotation from the Church Fathers
Text critics don't just look at manuscripts of the text. They also examine quotations of passages in early writers. All quotations of Matthew 28:19 that include the "name" formula have the long version and not the short.

• Didache 7:1 "Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water;
• Tertullian On Baptism para 13 "'Go', he says, 'teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
• Tertullian Against Praxeas, chap 2: "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
• Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII
• Hippolytus (170-236 AD) Fragments: Part II – Dogmatical and Historical – Against the Heresy of One Noetus
• Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
• and there are others

In total, searching those Fathers prior to Nicea, 24 quotations of Matthew 28:19 use the full formula. No quotations of the short version.

Triune Formulas Elsewhere in the New Testament

• At the baptism of Jesus, all three Divine Persons are present (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32).
• 2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you"
• 1 Peter 1:2-3a "...who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!"

Logical Evidence
A third way in which the longer form can be seen to be original is to simply apply logic to the argument for the shorter as a conspiracy. The argument is that some faction of the Church (obviously representing the majority as this view won):

1. Wanted the trinity formula in Matthew.
2. Willfully altered manucsripts of Matthew 28:19.
3. Sought out and destroyed all manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 containing the short reading.
4. Then went through the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and altered their quotations of Matthew, destroying all other copies.

However, these conspirators, who had so little respect for Scripture that they altered it and were so careful as to destroy every copy of Matthew with the short reading, left intact the so-called original verse in Luke 24:47 (which is not a baptismal formula and is not a parallel to Matthew 28:19)* and all references to Jesus' name baptism in Acts and the Epistles! If this willful alteration is being done in Matthew, why stop there? Why not change Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; and 19:5? These five verses in Acts all refer to Jesus' name baptism or being baptized in Jesus' name (once, in the name of our Lord). None of them have textual variants of a trinitarian formula.

Logically, if the conspirators made the change once, they would make the change in other places. At the time which this conspiracy is supposed to have taken place (Nicea, AD 325), the de-facto canon had been used and recognised since Iraneus. Matthew, Luke, and Acts were already recognised as Scripture.

+++

Having distanced ourselves from Eusebius' shortened verse, remember that Eusebius was himself evidently a Trinitarian.

If this were a conspiracy, it was a rather inept conspiracy as it left intact so many other verses in Scripture while managing to replace all versions of Matthew 28:19 with the new one.

+++

Finally – in reference to the mention of Luke, here is 24:45-47:
"Then he opened their mind to understand the scriptures; and he said to them: “Thus it has been written [and so must it be] that the Anointed will suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day, and in his name transformation of the heart and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
The key text here is 'in his name' – if Jesus is only a man, a prophet or the Messiah, he still would not possess in his own name the authority to forgive sin nor perform miracles. This would clearly be a blasphemy, and his listeners, all Jews, would see it as such (as is evident in the Scriptures themselves, where he stood accused of it) but clearly the Christians believed that Jesus rests in some order of 'special relationship' with both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit that he can act in his own name and, that his name can be uttered in the same breath and with equal status as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[Faithfulservant]

A Freeman has touted the King of Kings version of the Bible as the complete and accurate translation of scripture. Putting aside for the moment that such claim is false, at least as far as Hebrew scripture is concerned, you should check out the website of the person or organization behind that version. If you don't have it, private message me and I will provide it to you.

Besides supporting some very, to put charitably, odd ideas, it is among other things one of the most virulent anti-Jewish websites I have come across. And there is more if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

Some of the other members here who are also members of another forum I post on may remember him. He did not last long there

I appreciate the offer but I don't want to give even negative support by wasting my time looking at what I perceive as trash. If they butchered the NT I'm sure they did worse to the Tanakh. Bible Gateway doesn't even carry that translation and they carry some questionable translations IMO.

 

[Faithfulservant]

It's your translation that is false, and you were even provided the evidence that trinitarian phraseology was very obviously added to it, just as it was with 1 John 5:6-8. That's why NONE of the disciples or apostles ever baptized in "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", because Jesus NEVER actually told them to do that.

With regard to the evidence that has been personally shared, it is intentionally thorough because people do what you did, i.e. post a single verse and try to claim that one very obviously tampered with verse that doesn't agree with anything else in Scripture is somehow proof of an anti-Biblical (anti-Christ) doctrine.

Christ is the LITERAL Son of God. Christ was NOT sent to role play as a pretended son that is allegedly part of a 3=1 "trinity".

1 John 2:22 (KJV) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Your logic is so faulty. Why do you think the Jewish leaders wanted Him killed? He was claiming to be God which violated their laws.

 

[A Freeman]

Your logic is so faulty. Why do you think the Jewish leaders wanted Him killed? He was claiming to be God which violated their laws.

There's nothing wrong with the logic; only the understanding of it. The reason the Jewish leaders manipulated the Roman government into murdering Jesus is because they too were blinded by their own arrogance/ignorance into believing the LIE that someone claiming to be the Son OF God was allegedly committing blasphemy.

Matthew 26:63-65
26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the High Priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the Living God, that thou tell us whether thou be The Christ, the Son of God.
26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the "Clouds" of heaven.
26:65 Then the High Priest tore his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

John 10:31-36
10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods (Ps. 82:6)?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son OF God?

 

[A Freeman]

Matthew 28:18-20
"And, approaching, Jesus spoke to them, saying, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, instruct all the gentiles, baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and see: I am with you every day until the consummation of the age.”

Herein the argument, distilled from the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange:
The position in the question, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not original to Matthew 28:19 is held today by very few scholars.

Those who do point to a quotation from Eusebius, who in Demonstratio 3.6, replaces "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "my name." This was written around 312-318CE.

This is reasonably assumed to be a direct quote from the copy of Matthew he was using, and a later conclusion was then reached that the long version of Matthew 28:19 is an addition, and that the shorter Eusebian version was purposefully suppressed.

The originality of the short version of the verse fails in regards to both physical/manuscript evidence and logic.

Manuscript Evidence I: Matthew
Critics if the Trinitarian doctrine claim there is a mountain of historical evidence, there actually isn't.

No manuscript of Matthew is known that has the short form of the verse. Even though the critical texts used by scholars lay out all kinds of textual variants throughout the NT, none lists v19. Text variants of 18 and 20 and noted, but none for 19. Beyond Greek, all ancient translations, eg Latin or Syriac, have the long reading of Matthew.

Bart Ehrman, neither a Christian nor a trinitarian, agrees that the long form of the verse is original in a letter to a correspondent:
" ... The reasons people like Petersen have suspected that Matthew 28:19-20 were not original are (1) the verses sound like they embrace the later doctrine of the trinity and (2) they are not found in Eusebius’s quotations. Most scholars have not been convinced, however, primarily because the verses are found in every solitary manuscript of Matthew, whether Greek, Latin, or …. any other ancient language, and are cited by yet other church fathers. Most interpreters think that the later doctrine of the trinity is not necessarily implied by the verses, but that they are simply read that way by people who know about the trinity. But in any event, most textual scholars think that the verses are almost certainly original to Matthew. Hope this helps — Bart Ehrman"

+++

With regard to Eusebius –

1. Eusebius' short form ... is the only textual evidence for the short reading
2. Eusebius tends to abbreviate elsewhere
3. Eusebius quotes the long form in Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; and Theophania 4.8

It is worth noting that Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, where he is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However...
Eusebius writes: "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth."
Whereas the full text is: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"

+++

Manuscript Evidence II: Quotation from the Church Fathers
Text critics don't just look at manuscripts of the text. They also examine quotations of passages in early writers. All quotations of Matthew 28:19 that include the "name" formula have the long version and not the short.

• Didache 7:1 "Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water;
• Tertullian On Baptism para 13 "'Go', he says, 'teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
• Tertullian Against Praxeas, chap 2: "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
• Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII
• Hippolytus (170-236 AD) Fragments: Part II – Dogmatical and Historical – Against the Heresy of One Noetus
• Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
• and there are others

In total, searching those Fathers prior to Nicea, 24 quotations of Matthew 28:19 use the full formula. No quotations of the short version.

Triune Formulas Elsewhere in the New Testament

• At the baptism of Jesus, all three Divine Persons are present (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32).
• 2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you"
• 1 Peter 1:2-3a "...who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!"

Logical Evidence
A third way in which the longer form can be seen to be original is to simply apply logic to the argument for the shorter as a conspiracy. The argument is that some faction of the Church (obviously representing the majority as this view won):

1. Wanted the trinity formula in Matthew.
2. Willfully altered manucsripts of Matthew 28:19.
3. Sought out and destroyed all manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 containing the short reading.
4. Then went through the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and altered their quotations of Matthew, destroying all other copies.

However, these conspirators, who had so little respect for Scripture that they altered it and were so careful as to destroy every copy of Matthew with the short reading, left intact the so-called original verse in Luke 24:47 (which is not a baptismal formula and is not a parallel to Matthew 28:19)* and all references to Jesus' name baptism in Acts and the Epistles! If this willful alteration is being done in Matthew, why stop there? Why not change Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; and 19:5? These five verses in Acts all refer to Jesus' name baptism or being baptized in Jesus' name (once, in the name of our Lord). None of them have textual variants of a trinitarian formula.

Logically, if the conspirators made the change once, they would make the change in other places. At the time which this conspiracy is supposed to have taken place (Nicea, AD 325), the de-facto canon had been used and recognised since Iraneus. Matthew, Luke, and Acts were already recognised as Scripture.

+++

Having distanced ourselves from Eusebius' shortened verse, remember that Eusebius was himself evidently a Trinitarian.

If this were a conspiracy, it was a rather inept conspiracy as it left intact so many other verses in Scripture while managing to replace all versions of Matthew 28:19 with the new one.

+++

Finally – in reference to the mention of Luke, here is 24:45-47:
"Then he opened their mind to understand the scriptures; and he said to them: “Thus it has been written [and so must it be] that the Anointed will suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day, and in his name transformation of the heart and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
The key text here is 'in his name' – if Jesus is only a man, a prophet or the Messiah, he still would not possess in his own name the authority to forgive sin nor perform miracles. This would clearly be a blasphemy, and his listeners, all Jews, would see it as such (as is evident in the Scriptures themselves, where he stood accused of it) but clearly the Christians believed that Jesus rests in some order of 'special relationship' with both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit that he can act in his own name and, that his name can be uttered in the same breath and with equal status as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Are you really so blind as to not have noticed what was actually asked BEFORE attempting to attack it?

Even if what you've posted was true, which it isn't, NO ONE (not a single disciple or apostle, and certainly not Christ-Jesus Himself) baptized anyone in the New Covenant/Testament "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". No, not one.

 

[Faithfulservant]

There's nothing wrong with the logic; only the understanding of it. The reason the Jewish leaders manipulated the Roman government into murdering Jesus is because they too were blinded by their own arrogance/ignorance into believing the LIE that someone claiming to be the Son OF God was allegedly committing blasphemy.

Matthew 26:63-65
26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the High Priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the Living God, that thou tell us whether thou be The Christ, the Son of God.
26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the "Clouds" of heaven.
26:65 Then the High Priest tore his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

John 10:31-36
10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods (Ps. 82:6)?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son OF God?

Youre wrong.. Im done with this conversation as your anti-Jew and heretical arguments are just gross.