Just the opposite!
Christians explain? Jews never believed in a Trinity even today so how/when did it start?
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."
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian
baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form
expanded by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus]
down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian
formula was later inserted."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first
used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The
chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection
saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some
scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making
disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its
Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the
(ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates.
(Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does
not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the
(Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian,
baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching
about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His
resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38;
8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second
and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again
(in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the
formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal
authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is
concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its
universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula
(is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later
(Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is
baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this
(Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be
remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103
informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part
of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the
rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words
("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in"
the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My
Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In
fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the
nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as
1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did
not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to
baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late
doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments.
The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly.
"As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving
baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36,
Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the
last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three
times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over
the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the
name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of
Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement
that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the
original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms
fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the
simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among
Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about
254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1,
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979
version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the
middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable
in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to
Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is
easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or
sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were
its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything,
few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or
the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19:
"Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought
to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any
extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the
trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it;
the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes
it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency
would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic
Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the
text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity)
text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in
the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic
Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that
the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian)
Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian
baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water
in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced
by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal
(and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance
are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an
astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing
contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the
Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the
probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been
edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic
Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the
instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of
the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was
almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a
chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
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
A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page
95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in
the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New
Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but
not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or
interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third
century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of
Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of
Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype
for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the
Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his
converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical
Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the
newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus
Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians
6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that
Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic)
foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of
(man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before
baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently,
between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication
of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic
form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the
second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of
origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism
and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in
Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman
Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the
early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an
unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the
original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original
text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make
disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have
commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
Nice research Quest.
An afternoon spent with a Orthodox Rabbi from one's community can be most enlightening on monotheism and the faith of Jesus the Jew.
Interesting research, quest. If the wt chose to use that as a defence for not having the trinity, it would also condemn itself for not using only jesus in it's baptismal formula. Wt jehovah would lose out.
Russell, Rutherford, and F. Franz all showed the influence of their upbringing in Calvin's teaching on Election of the Elect and Limited Atonement.
They were never able to shake it from their world view and it helped Rutherford, Knorr, and F. Franz develop their power structure.
DESIGN: Poor Jonathan, like Stephen, filled with so much superstition. Just another cult follower with a different color.
JD II: So I take it you are an atheist. Or do you just hate God?
design: Just the opposite!
So which God is your God? The one who flooded earth in Noah's day? And put men, women and children to the sword via the Israelites? The one who will vanquish mankind at Armageddon? Is this your good God? And this is better than the TriniyGod who casts souls into hell? The first is good but not the second? the first is the good God?
It isn't, however. Salvation is an ongoing process, not a one time event accompanying an epiphany.
On salvation, notice the tense used BTS
Ephesians 2:1-9 (New International Version)
Made Alive in Christ1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. There are verses which speak of what we are going to be saved from (future tense) 2 Peter 3:7 but it is already in the bag for those who believe. All the best, Stephen
Quest for Truth:
The information you posted above regarding Matthew 28:19 and non-traditional views with respect to the baptismal formula, and which you passed off as your own research, was actually copied and pasted from the below web site. It is work and research compiled by Clinton D. Willis [email protected]
That is plagarism and at the least you should acknowledge that fact.
Jonathan you're trippin on weird mushrooms, take the time to do good everyday, you'll get there.
JD II: So Design, which God is your God? The one who flooded earth in Noah's day? And put men, women and children to the sword via the Israelites? The one who will vanquish mankind at Armageddon? Is this your good God? And this is better than the Trinity God who casts souls into hell? The first is good but not the second? the first is the good God?
Design answers: Jonathan you're trippin on weird mushrooms, take the time to do good everyday, you'll get ther
You can come up with something more eloquent than that. Come now! How is your version of God better than the Trinity God? Are you cancelling Armegeddon? How is justifiably slaughtering 20 billion better than damnation in hell, however that is interpreted.