Why I Am a Trinitarian: Part Two

[RedFan]

Not in theological support of the trinity can one arbitrarily pick a random number to express the inherently contradictory concept of 3-is-1-ism.

I agree. That much is inherent in "trinity." But my point about the notes in a chord was that multiple pieces of music still yield music in combination -- and the multiple need not be three.

Still, you have accurately noted (no pun intended) that the number three historically does have a somewhat mystical quality to it -- and not just in Judeo-Christian circles. I will likely get into Plotinus at some point, as an example.

 

[Wrangler]

The early church fathers wrestled with this. For them, the manger rather than the Cross was at the center of the theological roundtable. They ultimately concluded that the ransom price was high indeed. They ultimately concluded that the victim must be divine.

This is the heart of many trinitarian apologies, nowhere to be found in Scripture and, therefore, in violation of Mark 7:13.

God, being sovereign, could have chosen any means to achieve reconciliation of us to him. He could have raised up a holy rooster or cow to be the sacrifice, etc. He could have incarnated himself - and said so in no uncertain terms. But he didn't. Instead, he raised up a servant. See Deut 18:15-18 and Acts.

In addition, being divine means, by definition, to be 'of God' not a deity.

And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition.
Mark 7:13 NLT

For it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God of all our ancestors—who has brought glory to his servant Jesus by doing this
Acts 3:13

 

[Wrangler]

It was Christ as a human being whose human body died on the cross.

Another bedrock trinitarian basis of apology, contradicting your admission that God cannot die. Furthermore, you rely on dualism to support your doctrine nowhere to be found in Scripture.

 

[RedFan]

This is the heart of many trinitarian apologies, nowhere to be found in Scripture and, therefore, in violation of Mark 7:13.

I reject your proposition that if something is not found in Scripture it is therefore a false doctrine. (That proposition itself, by the way, is not found in Scripture, certainly not in Mark 7:13.)

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus taught us many things. "God, himself, the holy spirit, man, sin, forgiveness, repentance, salvation, faith, righteousness, humility, money, prayer, The Sabbath, sickness, death, love, marriage, divorce, woman, children, angels, heaven, hell and Satan. But never taught the Trinity. Only man will teach a false doctrine.
Jesus never said he was God. For the main doctrine in Christianity, that seems odd. There are many Trinitarians that think non-Trinitarians aren't even Christians.
God the Son never appears in the bible, not to mention, God the Holy Spirit.

-- AND --

Some first century Jews had a conniption fit with circumcision, as we already know. It would have caused even more problems for them to now have to accept the man Jesus "as" God. Not one mention in the bible about how some Christians had issues with this... Not to mention, "Eat my [Jesus'] flesh" He lost a lot of followers with that one. How would they have handled, "hey, btw I'm God too!", without a mention in the bible about it? The scriptures are lacking for that, because they all knew he wasn't God.

The scriptures are clear. God cannot be seen by humans and live. Non-Trinitarians don't have a problem with that, (John 1:18). But the Trinity camp does. So the Whack-o-mole games begins.... So according to them, God can be seen, God can die and God can be tested.... Even though the scriptures say that isn't correct. What was the point of saying "God cannot die?" But then I have to die on the cross for you to be saved.

The bible works perfectly if you believe Jesus was God's Son, just like John 3:16 says.

Welcome to the forums! Welcome indeed. Very well written. Succinct.

 

[Wrangler]

I reject your proposition that if something is not found in Scripture it is therefore a false doctrine. (That proposition itself, by the way, is not found in Scripture, certainly not in Mark 7:13.)

You took the converse of my point. False doctrine is not found in Scripture and what you are advocating is not found in Scripture.

It is not merely "something" not found in Scripture, like how to get from Dallas to Boston, but doctrine not explicitly taught in God's word. Scripture explicitly says over and over again that there is 1 God, YWHW (not Jesus) and Jesus is the Son of God (not God). Why is this insufficient?

 

[RedFan]

You took the converse of my point. False doctrine is not found in Scripture and what you are advocating is not found in Scripture.

It is not merely "something" not found in Scripture, like how to get from Dallas to Boston, but doctrine not explicitly taught in God's word. Scripture explicitly says over and over again that there is 1 God, YWHW (not Jesus) and Jesus is the Son of God (not God). Why is this insufficient?

If your point is that a doctrine inconsistent with Scripture must be false, I tend to agree. (That's not how I read your earlier comment "nowhere to be found in Scripture and, therefore, in violation of Mark 7:13.")

But unlike you, I think Scripture is equivocal on the issue -- which is why I am willing to consider other things, including the writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[Wrangler]

What Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 -- a direct quote -- was that God is a Trinity. So you have made two false statements in that one sentence.

Untrue. 1st, it is dubious that this is the actual words of Christ. Was Matthew 28:19 Added To The Bible

2nd, if Jesus said to baptize in the name of Moe, Larry and Curly, it would say nothing about the trinity and it'd be obvious even to trinitarians.

3rd, I always found it odd and out of place that Jesus walked with the Apostles for years and never mentioned this apparently important doctrine until he elevated away. Relying on it is an Appeal to Strawman for an actual trinitarian statement would be like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

 

[RedFan]

Untrue. 1st, it is dubious that this is the actual words of Christ. Was Matthew 28:19 Added To The Bible

As noted in Post #25 on this thread, I too think it is dubious that Matthew 28:19 accurately quoted the actual words of Christ. And I say that even though I think the quote was in Matthew's original. I just think Matthew (or whoever the writer was) got the quote wrong.

 

[Wrangler]

What do you make of 1 Thessalonians 5:23?

I have been contemplating writing a rebuttal to every verse that trinitarians impose their doctrine onto unitarian text.

One tactic of ambiguity trinitarians have engaged in for centuries is to falsely equate a god with a lord. There are many of both in Scripture and the terms are certainly not synonyms. The word 'and' is pivotable. Trinitarians demand such verses to be taken as referring to one Being, as in "winner and still champion" as opposed to "Tom and Jerry."

Have you seen my thread on juxtapositions? It is revealing. Compare the text substituting 2 other nouns.

Now may the God of peace make you holy in every way, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again --> Now may your best friend, Bob, give you as much fellowship as you need, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless until Shark Week Marathon, hosted by Charlie, comes again.
​

I think the transliteration makes more clear there are 2 Beings involved, Bob and Charlie.

Seriously, this is not the only time Scripture juxtaposes God and Jesus. In fact, every Epistle identifies God as the Father alone, while Jesus is also identified as the motive for the author.

May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus, the Anointed One, surround you. First, I thank my God through Jesus the Anointed for all of you. Romans 1:7-8

I pray that God our Father and the Lord Jesus, the Anointed One, will shower you with grace and peace. 1 Cor 1:3

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
2 Corinthians 1:2

I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.
Galatians 1:1

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
Ephesians 1:2

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
Philippians 1:2

May God our Father give you grace and peace. Colossians 1:2

We are writing to the church in Thessalonica, to you who belong to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 & 2 Thessalonians 1:1

May God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord give you grace, mercy, and peace.1 & 2 Timothy 1:2

May God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior give you grace and peace.
Titus 1:4

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
Philemon 1:3

For God never said to any angel what he said to Jesus: “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.” God also said, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son. Hebrews 1:5

Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring. James 1:27

God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and his Spirit has made you holy. 1 Peter 1:2

when he received honor and glory from God the Father. 2 Peter 1:17

We proclaim ... our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:3 (NOTE: Again no reference to the HS)

Grace, mercy, and peace, which come from God the Father. 2 John 1:3

He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father. Revelation 1:6​

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Wrangler]

As noted in Post #25 on this thread, I too think it is dubious that Matthew 28:19 accurately quoted the actual words of Christ. And I say that even though I think the quote was in Matthew's original. I just think Matthew (or whoever the writer was) got the quote wrong.

There is a thread I started a couple of years ago delving into the disobedient Apostles. While there are numerous verses indicating they baptized, not one confirmed they baptized as Matthew 28:19 alleges was commanded.

Therefore, 2 possible explanations emerge:

1. The Apostles, having seen the resurrected Lord Jesus, disobeyed his command to baptize in the name of 3; or
2. Jesus did not actually make such a command.

I know which explanation seems more plausible to me.

 

[Wrangler]

But unlike you, I think Scripture is equivocal on the issue

Indeed. 'For us, there is one God, the Father.' Not too equivocal. In fact, it's hard to imagine a stronger anti-trinitarian statement. Especially in the absence of what is missing; not once is 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit' explicitly stated. This should be definitive to anyone not pushing doctrine not found in Scripture.

Many verses, like Romans 8:11, states explicitly that God raised Jesus from the dead. No verse says the trinitarian preferred "Father" raised Jesus to introduce needed confusion and ambiguity. And God is referred to using singular pronouns about 7,000 times in Scripture. Not too equivocal.

In fact, the more I study Scripture, the less ambiguity there is to see. Consider Rev 1:1. After ascending into heaven, after being raised from the dead, after being given all authority on Earth and Heaven, Jesus is STILL not God! The book is the revelation that God gave to Jesus.


'This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him'
Revelation 1:1

 

[APAK]

In fact, the more I study Scripture, the less ambiguity there is to see. Consider Rev 1:1. After ascending into heaven, after being raised from the dead, after being given all authority on Earth and Heaven, Jesus is STILL not God! The book is the revelation that God gave to Jesus.


'This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him'
Revelation 1:1

Yes, dozens of dozens of verses with God, our Father, alongside his Son, Jesus the Christ by his Father in the same conversation.

We see a flood gate opened up, of the Father and Son, and others see a closed gate of only a Triune God where the HS is usually AWOL!

 

[Wrangler]

We see a flood gate opened up, of the Father and Son, and others see a closed gate of only a Triune God where the HS is usually AWOL!

Matthew 28:19 supposedly says to baptize in all 3 names. Yet, every epistle states only the dynamic duo, as I showed.

This means nothing to die hard trinitarians.

 

[Enoch111]

Untrue. 1st, it is dubious that this is the actual words of Christ

There is absolutely no question that those are the actual words of Christ. Both the Received Text and the Critical Text have that verse.

CRITICAL TEXT
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

RECEIVED TEXT
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

And had there been the slightest doubt, the Critical Text would have been delighted to expunge that verse or put a question mark against it (as they have removed many verses). There is not a single English translation where this verse is absent. Check it out for yourself. So when you come up with nonsensical statements, it means that you do not want the truth about the Trinity. If you were to accept it, you would have to totally discard all your former beliefs and leave the JWs.

 

[APAK]

Matthew 28:19 supposedly says to baptize in all 3 names. Yet, every epistle states only the dynamic duo, as I showed.

This means nothing to die hard trinitarians.

Also they do not care that the common altered version of Matt 28:19, with the later inserted '3 names' should read in his/my (Yahshua's) name. And it does nothing to show a Triune God anyway.

Why in heaven's name would anyone be or want to to be baptized differently than others noted in the NT? Citing the three portions of a trinity formula does nothing for true repentance to renewal. In Christ's name has REAL meaning and power.

 

[Matthias]

But unlike you, I think Scripture is equivocal on the issue -- which is why I am willing to consider other things, including the writings of the Church Fathers.

What “other things” besides the writings of the Church Fathers have you considered?

 

[RedFan]

There is absolutely no question that those are the actual words of Christ. Both the Received Text and the Critical Text have that verse.

CRITICAL TEXT
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

RECEIVED TEXT
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

And had there been the slightest doubt, the Critical Text would have been delighted to expunge that verse or put a question mark against it (as they have removed many verses). There is not a single English translation where this verse is absent. Check it out for yourself. So when you come up with nonsensical statements, it means that you do not want the truth about the Trinity. If you were to accept it, you would have to totally discard all your former beliefs and leave the JWs.

(Sigh!)

It seems that I am butting heads with both sides of this debate -- but sometimes it is because I focus on the relevance of their arguments, challenging only the path someone has taken to reach a conclusion even though I end up at the same waypoint (although we may then go on to diverge from there). This is one such instance.

@Enoch111 points to the two dominant Greek compilations of the NT, each of which has the triad in Matthew 28:19. The relevance of his argument is mild. The stronger argument would explain why these two likely got it right. They got it right because all of the early manuscripts have the triad in this verse -- Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Codex Bezae (5th century)-- and none don't have it. The older and more unanimous the evidence, the stronger it is. (Thus, when @Enoch111 points out that there is "not a single English translation where this verse is absent," the relevance of this argument is even weaker than pointing to the Critical Text or the Textus Receptus from which those English translations were derived.)

Moreover, if the shorter version were in the original, someone would have had to hunt down and destroy every manuscript containing that shorter version and replace them all with what @APAK calls "the common altered version of Matt 28:19" (emphasis mine). That's quite a conspiracy theory! And such a conspiracy would have had to hatch long before Nicaea, because we can see the apparent influence that Matthew's triadic version had on second-century Christian usage -- in the Didache 7:1-4, in Justin Martyr's First Apology ch. 61, in Irenaeus' Against Heresies Book 3 ch. 17, in Tertullian's On Baptism ch. 13. With all due respect to @APAK, I would bet my left nut that there was no alteration of the original.

Bottom line: @Enoch111 and I agree that the triad was in Matthew's original (albeit for slightly different reasons).

But @Enoch111 and I diverge from there. He concludes that since it was in Matthew's original, therefore it is an accurate quote of Jesus' last words. For @Enoch111, one follows from the other as the night follows the day, inexorably, it is impossible for the author to have misquoted Jesus, "absolutely no question" (emphasis his), end of discussion! My post #25 explains why I think otherwise -- and I am waiting for @Enoch111 to challenge it. The jump from "Matthew wrote those words" to "therefore they are true" marks the jumper either as not being much of a logician or as not understanding the meaning of the word "therefore" (or both).

(Lest I be accused of picking on my fellow Trinitarian @Enoch111, note that I have done the same with other posters on this thread. For example, I occasionally agree with @Wrangler, but disagree with his methodology for reaching the conclusions we share.)

Of course, there is not much at stake here. No one can logically deduce the doctrine of the Trinity (three hypostases sharing one ousia) solely from the triadic baptismal formula quoted -- I would say misquoted -- in Matthew 28:19. So all I'm really doing is making a plea here, to both camps, for a little tighter logic in our arguments, with fewer assumptions that cannot be supported. Because frankly, the overreaching and illogic is getting very tiresome. I am almost ready to switch to another Forum.

 

[APAK]

@APAK calls "the common altered version of Matt 28:19" (emphasis mine). That's quite a conspiracy theory! And such a conspiracy would have had to hatch long before Nicaea, because we can see the apparent influence that Matthew's triadic version had on second-century Christian usage -- in the Didache 7:1-4, in Justin Martyr's First Apology ch. 61, in Irenaeus' Against Heresies Book 3 ch. 17, in Tertullian's On Baptism ch. 13.

Well not nearly as a conspiracy theory as you may think for the reason I already proposed. And then so many are apt to brush it off and walk away from the subject so easily without further questioning Matt 28:19b as a later scribe insertion into the text. The real conspiracy is the Trinity-biased scribes and the power behind their hands and nibs, that kept producing this err in practically all Bible translations.

Let me expand on it a bit.

Scripture only supports the baptism in Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus, his spirit only, in his name. It is cited in Luke 24:46-47; John 20:31; Romans 1:4-5; Acts 2:21, 2:38; 3:6, 4:10, 8:12, 8:16, 9:27, 9:29, 10:48, 16:31, 19:5, 19:17, 22:14-16.

There are dozens of sources pointing to the same conclusion, that Matthew 28:19b is not in the original language text and inserted into scripture later, deliberately to somehow support the Trinity.

Here are some few examples:

1. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, ‘..and the triune formula is a later addition.’

2. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, Page 295 states, “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.”

3. The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD, according to the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015.

4. The New Revised Standard Version Bible says that ‘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..”

5. The Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says “the basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in the connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matt 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” (XVI 2004)

Consequence of this fabrication: One must be repentant and baptized, bathed or immersed into Christ only, not into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The former receives the spirit of Truth, the latter does not and is not converted. One is repentant and believe they have also been crucified in their sins as Christ (who was sinless), not by a crucified Father, and his own Holy Spirit.

As Galatians 3:27 states, “..who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” We are never spiritually clothed or immersed into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! That would be nonsense!!

More source that says Matt 28:19 is a forgery.

The Roman Catholics say, "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."[1]

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 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..." [2]

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." [3]

Edmund Schlink, a Lutheran Theologian said, "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot 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."[4]

In, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, it says: "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."[5]

Wilhelm Bousset, a German Theologian said,: "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."[6]


[1] (The Catholic Encyclopedia, II 1907-1913)

[2] (New Revised Standard Version 1989)

[3] (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics 1908-1927)

[4] (Schlink 1972)

[5] (France 2009)

[6] (Bousset 1913/ 1970 English)

This is all from my Book still in work for years now....should get it done is few more years.

 

[APAK]

more on Matt 28:19b...

The Hastings Dictionary of the Bible says, "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:..." [1]

The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says, "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.[2]

The Jerusalem Bible says, "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,"..." [3]

James Orr, a Scottish Presbyterian Minister said, Under the title, "Baptism," "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."[4]

James Moffatt's New Testament Translation says this about Matthew 28:19: "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 +."[5]

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star said, "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." (Harpur n.d.)

Dr. Peake, and English Biblical scholar says, "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." (Peake 1919-1920)

Professor Stuart G. Hall, the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England 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." (Hall 1992)

-----------------more below------------