Matthew 28:19 – Trinity corrupted verse

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes. But I still don't understand what your're saying by, or how you came up with:

I want to share with everyone here this: The Lord Jesus revealed to us how to receive truth and understanding from the Father. Most people miss it and they try to bypass it. Many laugh at it.

It begins with this:
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.…
At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

God, who knows our hearts, will withold Truth from us, if we are not submitted fully to Him.
 
Last edited:

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,670
5,158
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wrangler, you didn’t ask me to “clarify the scope of my question” and you didn’t answer a question with a question. You said, “I can answer about Scripture...... Before I answer,....

So, once again, I’m not playing your game. If you can answer, then answer! It’s pretty simple.

No. You may not be playing my game but you are playing a game.

You asked a 2 part question. Just because I did not originally use the words “clarify the scope of your question” does not mean that is what I'm saying is a pre-requisite for me to answer your question(s).

Make a blessed day.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,670
5,158
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When did the teaching that there was no Trinity begin?

Unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism by millennia. Unitarianism or monotheism is what everyone who wrote the Bible believed. This explains why the trinity - the word and the doctrine - is not in Scripture. This explains why all the Epistles differentiate God (who alone is the Father) from Jesus and does not even mention the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarianism did not begin until the 4th century. From today's devotional reading.


Grace to you and shalom from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah.
1 Corinthians 1:3 Complete Jewish Bible
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism by millennia. Unitarianism or monotheism is what everyone who wrote the Bible believed. This explains why the trinity - the word and the doctrine - is not in Scripture. This explains why all the Epistles differentiate God (who alone is the Father) from Jesus and does not even mention the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarianism did not begin until the 4th century. From today's devotional reading.


Grace to you and shalom from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah.
1 Corinthians 1:3 Complete Jewish Bible

wrangler says: "Unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism by millennia. Unitarianism or monotheism is what everyone who wrote the Bible believed."
These statements are false.

Jesus says to everyone: the Scripture cannot be broken = the Scriptures are Eternal
Jesus says to everyone: Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

In the beginning God(Elohim/plural).....and God said Let Us make man in Our Image = God declares He is more then a singular one.

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

Abraham - Father of Nations
Isaac - the only begotten Son of the Father
Jacob - the Holy Spirit

Why do the scriptures say God is One? Because the Hebrew word used to describe God as one is 'echad' which means a United One

Hear oh Israel the Lord thy God(Elohim/plural) is One(Echad - two or more united as One)

The Scripture cannot lie or be broken or pass away.
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,808
3,808
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, you don’t. You start with your doctrine and attempt to support it by synthesizing SOME verses.

For instance, why is Jesus saying his Father is the only true God not good enough for you?


You can keep repeating your first statement till your blue in the face, it won't make it any more true!

JOhn 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

and

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Amongst many others formed my doctrine.!

I think your constant protesting is because you realize you are guyilty of what you are falsely accusing me of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David in NJ

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,670
5,158
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
wrangler says: "Unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism by millennia. Unitarianism or monotheism is what everyone who wrote the Bible believed."
These statements are false.

Jesus says to everyone: the Scripture cannot be broken = the Scriptures are Eternal
Jesus says to everyone: Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

In the beginning God(Elohim/plural).....and God said Let Us make man in Our Image = God declares He is more then a singular one.

The Genesis quote is dicta compared to the 1C, you shall have no other god's before me.
 

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Genesis quote is dicta compared to the 1C, you shall have no other god's before me.

You didn't say anything that has any bearing on the scriptures that declare:
I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. This is My Name FOREVER, my memorial Name for ALL GENERATIONS.

You never answer the question:
"Why do you call Me good? there is none good but one, God"
Is Jesus good?
or
Is Jesus God?

"Let Us make man in Our Image according to Our Likeness"
Father, Son and Holy Spirit - AMEN

You shall have no other god's before Me -
This can only mean one truth in the Light of Scripture
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God"
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
John 1:10 "He was in the world and the world was made through Him and the world did not know Him.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
Matthew 1:23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us”).
 
Last edited:

BroRando

Active Member
May 1, 2021
596
88
28
Arizona
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You shall have no other god's before Me -

Jesus even admitted of coming from the gods whom the word of God came!

Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?  If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:34-36)

Morning stars are among the first angels or the beginning angels of creation. Morning Stars and all the sons of God are the angels that existed before Abraham was and before the earth itself. After all, it was the newly created earth that they were applauding.
 

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus even admitted of coming from the gods whom the word of God came!

Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?  If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:34-36)

Morning stars are among the first angels or the beginning angels of creation. Morning Stars and all the sons of God are the angels that existed before Abraham was and before the earth itself. After all, it was the newly created earth that they were applauding.

ALL the angels were created by Jesus: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God....All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.… Colossians 1:15-17
 
Last edited:

BroRando

Active Member
May 1, 2021
596
88
28
Arizona
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn over All Creation. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.… Colossians 1:15-17

  • Yes, after the Son became the Firstborn over All Creation.
  • He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
  • For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.
Jesus was brought forth first. That is why he calls himself the Bright Morning star. (Revelation 16:22)
Morning stars are among the first angels or the beginning angels of creation. Morning Stars and all the sons of God are the angels that existed before Abraham was and before the earth itself. After all, it was the newly created earth that they were applauding.

God is not the Firstborn of All Creation... God is Eternal.

Another Feminine Noun describing Jesus Christ.
Strong's Concordance
ktisis: creation (the act or the product)
Original Word: κτίσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ktisis
Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is)
Definition: creation (the act or the product)
Usage: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 2937 ktísisproperly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo).

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. I was installed From the start, from times earlier than the earth. I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth," (Proverbs 8:22-25)
 

Curtis

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2021
3,268
1,574
113
70
KC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew 28 (WEB): (19) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you”.

When I was baptised, about 27 years ago, I was insistent that I should be baptised in Jesus’ name, and not in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, as is mentioned in Matthew 28:19. I was convinced of the error of the Trinity doctrine, and I strongly suspected that this was a corrupted verse – but I had no evidence to support that suspicion at that time. Now, 27 years later, and after someone on this forum claimed that they had evidence of the corruption, I have researched it and finally found evidence that vindicates my suspicion. This is a brief summary of what I found.

My suspicions were mainly based on the fact that his disciples didn’t obey that command. There are only four cases which are recorded in the New Testament where it mentions the disciples baptising in somebody's name, and in all cases they were baptised in the name of Jesus only. In particular, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, just days after Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, he said:

“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38, WEB).

I don’t think Peter forgot Jesus' command so quickly, especially considering that Jesus said, “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Also, Luke’s and Mark’s version of the Great Commission don’t mention baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They wrote:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16).

If we suspect that a verse has been corrupted from the original writing, then normally we would seek the oldest copy that we have; the older the manuscript the more likely that it is a faithful copy (remembering that this was many centuries before the invention of printing presses, so all books were written by hand). Unfortunately, we don’t have any New Testament manuscripts older than the 4th century AD, mainly because in AD 303 the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that all Christian sacred books should be burnt. Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" prohibited Christians from assembling for worship, and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire. Very few manuscripts survived, and in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages which contained the end of Matthew are missing (which I think is suspicious!).

However, while we don’t have manuscripts from the first three centuries, we do have other documents where the writers have quoted from the copies of Matthew that they had access to during those times. In particular, Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea, was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He became a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.).

The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics states, “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching’, or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name', the latter form being the more frequent”.

Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian Monatshefte, 1924, page 148, states, "Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius, therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly-arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once."

So it seems as though the few copies of the Matthew manuscripts that they had were altered not long after the Council of Nicaea.

There is now even better proof than this though. It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel, because it is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript. In fact, early writers claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew:

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language” (Origen circa 210 A.D., quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4).

In 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tob's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB). To just see the last page, Dr. G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, has published the pages showing the Hebrew text and the English translation of the end of Matthew 28 on a web page – see Mathew 28:19 Fraud Exposed, and follow the links in that page for more evidence and arguments that prove the verse was corrupted.

The translation into English of verses 19-20 is “Go, and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever”.

So it seems that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19 and the Catholics in general (including the Eastern Orthodox) have lied to the world!

From Acts 4 (WEB):

8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “…
10) in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …
12) There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”​

If water baptism saved anyone, that might make a difference.

Romans 10:13.
 

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn over All Creation. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.… Colossians 1:15-17

  • Yes, after the Son became the Firstborn over All Creation.
  • He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
  • For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.
Jesus was brought forth first. That is why he calls himself the Bright Morning star. (Revelation 16:22)


God is not the Firstborn of All Creation... God is Eternal.

Another Feminine Noun describing Jesus Christ.
Strong's Concordance
ktisis: creation (the act or the product)
Original Word: κτίσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ktisis
Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is)
Definition: creation (the act or the product)
Usage: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 2937 ktísisproperly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo).

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. I was installed From the start, from times earlier than the earth. I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth," (Proverbs 8:22-25)

Proverbs 8 does not say Jesus was created = therefore you are in a big lie because you do not understand Proverbs 8 and Proverbs 8 is not the foundation of who Elohim(plural) is = the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You are deceived by False doctrine and you reject the Lord Jesus Christ and His words = the Word who was God in the beginning.
Jesus is Jehovah - but you reject that therefore you cannot be saved.
“No one is holy like the LORD, For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God. 1 Samuel 2:2
and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4

The Rock, his work is perfect,
for all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and upright is he.

Deuteronomy 32:4
 

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL. Seems the singular pronoun “I” means plural to you.

Foolish wrangler - the I speaks of God being Echad (united ONE) - The Father Son and Holy Spirit move and act as ONE
Have you never read "Let us make man is Our Image according to Our Likeness
Have you never read: Jesus said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Since the Lord said two are no longer two, but one -
In the beginning God = In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
 
Last edited:

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
1,585
416
83
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
JOhn 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That's a poor translation. The "Word was God" could (and should) be more accurately translated as "Word was a God", "a god was the Word", "Word was divine" or "what God was, the Word was". See John 1:1 - Wikipedia which mentions that an Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes:

This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists.​

and which lists alternative renderings such as:
  • 14th century: "and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)
  • 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
  • 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
  • 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
  • 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
  • 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
  • 1867: "and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
  • 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
  • 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
  • 1911: "and [a] God was the word" – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.
  • 1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.
  • 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
  • 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
  • 1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation
  • 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
  • 1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
  • 1966, 2001: "and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible.
  • 1970, 1989: "and what God was, the Word was" – The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible.
  • 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
  • 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
  • 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
  • 1985: “So the Word was divine” - The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield.
  • 1998: "and what God was the Word also was" – This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Again a poor translation. For "God was manifest in the flesh" the Cambridge Bible notes says (I added the bold characters for emphasis):

The controversy is well known which has so long prevailed as to the original reading; whether the passage should begin ‘God’ or ‘who’: the Greek abbreviated form of writing ‘God’ being very like the Greek for ‘who,’ ΘΣ and οσ. Since the minute inspection of the Alexandrine ms. by Bps Lightfoot, Ellicott, and others, there is no doubt of its original reading being ‘who,’ as is also the reading of א, and all the Versions older than the 7th century, of Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome, Theodore, and Cyril. The neuter relative is indeed found in one uncial ms. (D1) in the It. and Vulg. and in all the Latin Fathers except Jerome, a correction apparently to make it agree with the neuter word mustךrion. The support of mss., Versions and Fathers is comparatively weak for ‘God’: while ‘it is a most significant fact that in the Arian controversy, no one of the Catholic champions except Gregory of Nyssa produces this passage, though it would have been their strong weapon.’ All the evidence preponderates in favour of a relative masc. or neut., and it seems incredible that θσ should have been altered into οσ because of the difficulty of the reading. Moreover it is difficult to understand how it could be said that God was justified in spirit or seen of angels or received up in glory. We take the reading ‘who’ unhesitatingly, and refer it to ‘an omitted though easily recognised antecedent, viz. Christ.’ The Person is implied in the Mystery. In Col_1:27, He is expressly called ‘this mystery among the Gentiles.’ In order to bring out the personal reference contained in the word ‘mystery’ as followed by the masculine relative, we must render in English with R.V. the mystery of godliness; He who. The abruptness and the rhythmical parallelism of the passage have been very probably accounted for by supposing it to be part of one of the earliest of the Christian creeds or hymns;​

The ASV is therefore a better translation (with capitalising the start of each line of the creed/hymn):

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.​

Such small errors of translation can (and has) easily lead many people astray! Careful and detailed Bible study can lead you to the truth.

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV).
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,195
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Unitarianism pre-dates trinitarianism by millennia.
Wrong. Unitarianism started in Poland-Lithuania and Transylvania in the late 16th century, as any scholarly source will attest.
Unitarianism or monotheism is what everyone who wrote the Bible believed. This explains why the trinity - the word and the doctrine - is not in Scripture. This explains why all the Epistles differentiate God (who alone is the Father) from Jesus and does not even mention the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarianism did not begin until the 4th century. From today's devotional reading.
Wrong.
The term “Trinity” was first used around the time of the 12th Pope, St. Soter (166-175), and the 13th Pope, St. Eleutherius (175-189). Theophilus was bishop of Antioch, and use the Greek “trias”, which was Latinized into “trinitas” about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time.

Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use.

Just as the term “Trinity” is not found anywhere in the bible, we both know that its meaning is explicitly taught. The same goes for other doctrinal concepts that, though the term is not found in the bible, we know its meaning is explicitly taught. (i.e. "Incarnation")

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

further reading:
Father, Son, & Spirit in Post-Apostolic Church - Part One (zeolla.org)
Father, Son, & Spirit in Post-Apostolic Church - Part Two (zeolla.org)
(non-Catholic)
 
Last edited:

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew 28 (WEB): (19) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you”.

When I was baptised, about 27 years ago, I was insistent that I should be baptised in Jesus’ name, and not in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, as is mentioned in Matthew 28:19. I was convinced of the error of the Trinity doctrine, and I strongly suspected that this was a corrupted verse – but I had no evidence to support that suspicion at that time. Now, 27 years later, and after someone on this forum claimed that they had evidence of the corruption, I have researched it and finally found evidence that vindicates my suspicion. This is a brief summary of what I found.

My suspicions were mainly based on the fact that his disciples didn’t obey that command. There are only four cases which are recorded in the New Testament where it mentions the disciples baptising in somebody's name, and in all cases they were baptised in the name of Jesus only. In particular, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, just days after Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, he said:

“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38, WEB).

I don’t think Peter forgot Jesus' command so quickly, especially considering that Jesus said, “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Also, Luke’s and Mark’s version of the Great Commission don’t mention baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They wrote:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16).

If we suspect that a verse has been corrupted from the original writing, then normally we would seek the oldest copy that we have; the older the manuscript the more likely that it is a faithful copy (remembering that this was many centuries before the invention of printing presses, so all books were written by hand). Unfortunately, we don’t have any New Testament manuscripts older than the 4th century AD, mainly because in AD 303 the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that all Christian sacred books should be burnt. Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" prohibited Christians from assembling for worship, and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire. Very few manuscripts survived, and in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages which contained the end of Matthew are missing (which I think is suspicious!).

However, while we don’t have manuscripts from the first three centuries, we do have other documents where the writers have quoted from the copies of Matthew that they had access to during those times. In particular, Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea, was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He became a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.).

The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics states, “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching’, or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name', the latter form being the more frequent”.

Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian Monatshefte, 1924, page 148, states, "Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius, therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly-arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once."

So it seems as though the few copies of the Matthew manuscripts that they had were altered not long after the Council of Nicaea.

There is now even better proof than this though. It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel, because it is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript. In fact, early writers claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew:

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language” (Origen circa 210 A.D., quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4).

In 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tob's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB). To just see the last page, Dr. G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, has published the pages showing the Hebrew text and the English translation of the end of Matthew 28 on a web page – see Mathew 28:19 Fraud Exposed, and follow the links in that page for more evidence and arguments that prove the verse was corrupted.

The translation into English of verses 19-20 is “Go, and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever”.

So it seems that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19 and the Catholics in general (including the Eastern Orthodox) have lied to the world!

From Acts 4 (WEB):

8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “…
10) in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …
12) There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”​

Anyone who says: 'the Word was a god = is a Liar = all liars shall have there part in the Lake of Fire - Revelation 21:8
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me."
JESUS says to you keithr - Why do you call ME good? there is NONE good but One, God

Whoever denies the Son denies the Father and cannot be SAVED from their sin.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,195
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I have seen many on the Internet and elsewhere claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was somehow "invented" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, or sometime later in the fourth century. But this claim would mean that the doctrine or even the word "Trinity" should not have existed in Christianity prior to this time.

So I decided to test this theory by doing a simple computer search on my new SAGE Digital Library. This CD ROM contains the full text of all 38 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, along with many other Christian documents. The phrase "Ante-Nicene Fathers" refers to the Church leaders prior to the time of Nicea. It was this section that was the focus of my study.

I typed "Trinity" in the search function and set it to "Match Whole Word Only" and "Match Case." The search then goes to and highlights every occurrence of the word, one-by-one. So I counted the occurrence of "Trinity" throughout the entire set.

I counted a total of 106 occurrences. This may not sound like a large number; but it is significant. How could the doctrine have been invented in the fourth century if Church leaders in the second and third centuries were talking about it?

And they were not just talking about the Trinity. In many cases they were explaining and defending the doctrine. At other times they were simply referring to the Trinity in a matter of fact way, as if they knew their readers would know what they were talking about without having to explain it.

Moreover, sometimes the term was expanded with some interesting adjectives. Some phrases I noticed through the search were: "Holy Trinity" - "blessed Trinity" - "perfect Trinity" - "Eternal Trinity" - "sacred Trinity" and "most divine Trinity." In writings shortly before Nicea were the phrases: "holy and consubstantial Trinity" and "consubstantial and indivisible Trinity." All these statements make it appear that the Church Fathers agreed with the doctrine!

Furthermore, there are other ways of expressing the idea that God is three-in-one than just with the term "Trinity." So my simple search probably missed places where writers were discussing the doctrine but without actually using the term. So I glanced through some of the documents.

I noticed God being said to be: Three-in-One, one Deity in three Persons, three Persons in one substance, and the like. Tertullian (c.160-220 AD), even devoted an entire book to defending the Trinity (Against Praxeas). And note, Tertullian lived over a hundred years prior to Nicea.

Now, none of this means the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily true and Biblical. But it does show that the idea of God being three-in-one, and the use of the word "Trinity" most definitely existed long before Nicea.

So why do I constantly see people claiming the Trinity was "invented" at Nicea or even later? The only explanation I can think of is that such people have never actually read the writings of the Church Fathers for themselves. But with copies of writings the Church Fathers being available in so many forms, this is inexcusable.

"Trinity" in the Ante-Nicene Fathers - Article (zeolla.org)
(non-Catholic)
 

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
1,585
416
83
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Abraham - Father of Nations
Isaac - the only begotten Son of the Father
Jacob - the Holy Spirit

You keep repeating those collection of words without any explanation of why you grouped them together and what they're supposed to mean. It's meaningless!


Why do the scriptures say God is One?
To teach that there is only one almighty god, and that there is no other god, or being, that is His superior or His equal.

Hear oh Israel the Lord thy God(Elohim/plural) is One(Echad - two or more united as One)
A more proper translation is "Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one" (WEB). It doesn't say, 'Yahweh, Yeshua and Holy Spirit are one'.

You say that 'echad' means two or more united as one, but Strongs concordance and the Online Bible Hebrew Lexicon don't define it as that. They say it means 'one' or 'first' (in the KJV it occurs 952 times and it's translated as 'one' 687 times and as 'first' 36 times), although Strongs says "united, i.e. one, or (as an ordinal) first". Looking at the context it seems to predominantly be used to describe a single entity, e.g. Genesis 2:21, "he took one [echad] of his ribs". An example of 'first' is Genesis 1:5, "There was evening and there was morning, the first [echad] day". It doesn't appear to be used very often to mean united, although one example is Exodus 26:11, "You shall make fifty clasps of brass, and put the clasps into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may be one [echad]".

The Scripture cannot lie or be broken or pass away.
They are often misunderstood though!

Malachi 2:10 (WEB):
Have we not all one [echad] father? hath not one [echad] God created us?​
 

David in NJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
7,846
4,160
113
48
Denville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You keep repeating those collection of words without any explanation of why you grouped them together and what they're supposed to mean. It's meaningless!


To teach that there is only one almighty god, and that there is no other god, or being, that is His superior or His equal.


A more proper translation is "Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one" (WEB). It doesn't say, 'Yahweh, Yeshua and Holy Spirit are one'.

You say that 'echad' means two or more united as one, but Strongs concordance and the Online Bible Hebrew Lexicon don't define it as that. They say it means 'one' or 'first' (in the KJV it occurs 952 times and it's translated as 'one' 687 times and as 'first' 36 times), although Strongs says "united, i.e. one, or (as an ordinal) first". Looking at the context it seems to predominantly be used to describe a single entity, e.g. Genesis 2:21, "he took one [echad] of his ribs". An example of 'first' is Genesis 1:5, "There was evening and there was morning, the first [echad] day". It doesn't appear to be used very often to mean united, although one example is Exodus 26:11, "You shall make fifty clasps of brass, and put the clasps into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may be one [echad]".


They are often misunderstood though!

Malachi 2:10 (WEB):
Have we not all one [echad] father? hath not one [echad] God created us?​

Dear keithr, Good morning/afternoon. I have to go to work but will get back to you - Please review and read about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Genesis. After you read that, go to Exodus 3:14-16

Peace, only in Christ, or you are rolling the dice....
that always comes up Snake Eyes