What is the original wording of Matthew 28:19?

Let's Begin Our Journey Of Discovery

On This Topic

All Scriptures are taken from the Authorized King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise noted. How-be-it many versions were used in the study and preparation in this study.



What is the original wording of Matthew 28:19?

©2008 By Steven D. Ashe and Study The Word Publications®





Question: Is the original wording of Matthew 28:19 the same as we have today in our modern Bibles or has it been changed?

Make sure you (the reader) reads all the way through this study for at the end I give substantial evidence and solid proof that we can trust the Bible as we have it today at least the Authorized King James Version (AKJV) as that is the one I used to minister to others and to teach from.



Here are some very interesting documented information I think you will find explosive to say the least. For the readers convenience I have assembled these in alphabetical order:





A
1.

A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

by Clinton D. Willis

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm also found on: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

(Note: All of these reference are listed separately in the rest of this research paper and are noted as such that is why I’m only counting this as 1 unit and not the 20 listed here - sda)



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 Jesus,"..."



The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:

"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 8:19:

"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 Moffatt'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:

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 confessed, is 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, Prolegomena 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 Acts.



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 triune 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 disciples 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 evidence" 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 cannot 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 unhistorical.



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, while the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache of 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 baptism.



"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the triune (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 triune 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 triune 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 later development."



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, revises 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 Creed."



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 whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.



2.

Adapted from "A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF CHURCH HISTORY FROM 150 AD TO THE SCHISM IN 1054 AD" by Cooper Abrams
This is a vital point in studying what is called, "Church History." Much of what is called Church History is in fact not a history of the true church at all, but the workings and organizations which Satan instituted to defeat it or dwarf the effectiveness of the true church in carrying out the Great Commission which is the spreading of the Gospel.
Also, it is well to take into account that the word "church" (Greek: ekklesia ek-kay-see') biblically means, "a group of called out believers" or "assembly" of believers. It is never used to refer to a structured organization which rules over believers in various local congregations. Nowhere is the Bible do you find that meaning in reference to the church. In the great majority of the times the word church is used in the New Testament it refers to a "local" assembly of believers. That is important in determining what is a true example of a New Testament church. The New Testament clearly presents the early church as a group of independent small assembles of believers and never as a complicated organization with levels of authority in the form of a system of hierarchy as found today in such groups as Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and many so called "Christian" groups.
The local church is presented in the Bible as a local group of believers who are independent and self governing, SOLELY using the Bible as its guide and rule of faith. When there is needed instruction, the church who truly follows the Biblical example, appeals the Scriptures, not to some higher up ranking organizational Bishop, Presbytery, Pope or any man made organization (Note - sda: There is nothing wrong with a group of true believers in organizing and growing as long as there is harmony, common faith and beliefs and that use the Bible as there sole guide. For Moses in wisdom set men over 10, 50, 100, etc to ease the burden of leading [Exodus 18:13-26] God’s people and the Apostles appointed men [Acts 6:1-7] to serve all the working of running the day to day details of the church while the Apostles went about praying and ministry of the word. Now don't get me wrong there are many, many ways in which having an organization can be good in that it helps in uniting the many individual local churches in outreach, ministry of home missions and foreign missions as well as in supporting cost of publishing material for Sunday School, Bible Colleges, and the list goes on but the most important thing to remember and hold to is that no matter the size, large or small, any organization is just a tool and nothing more and should not become the ruling body of any local church.). It most certainly does not appeal to the writings of past churchmen, established church history, tradition or supposed new revelation. In strictly letting the Holy Scriptures lead in all matters the church lets, God alone, apart from any wisdom or teaching of a man, guide it in truth.
From studying church history several things become clear. The organized church as developed into the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church left the strict use of the Bible as its 'rule of' faith and practice and substituted the "opinions" of church leaders. Also, the church made two other major errors. First, it failed to remain separate from the state and compromised the Word of God. Second, by letting the state "in-mass" convert pagans and bring them into the church without true conversion it polluted the purity of the church. From a Biblical standpoint, even though there were saved people in its ranks, it ceased to be a Scriptural church and God had no part in it.
However, one must realize that there were always those who followed the Biblical example of the church and the Gospel and never went into apostasy. These small groups of true believers, as stated earlier in these notes, were only in the limelight when the "organized" church was persecuting them. Some have said the church went into total apostasy, however one must define what is meant by the word "church." If one means the organized church the answer is a resounding, YES, it most definitely went into apostasy. But, if you mean the true churches that followed the Scriptures and was made up of "born again" believers, the answer is an absolute, NO. These believers never went into error. Even today, the majority of the organized churches in no way resemble what the New Testament presents as a true church. God cannot bless error and even though many of these "churches" grow stronger and show signs of truth and have many good works and has various miracles (Note - sda: Having miracles, and blessing in a church or even in an individuals life isn't a sign that they are right with God. Remember God will honor His word whether one is walking in truth or walking in partial truth as those in Matthew 7:21-24 will testify to that end in final judgment.).
Moreover, the true church does exist today, and it does so in the form of local "called out” believers who have joined themselves together for the sole purpose in doing the Will of God. They are using the Bible as their sole 'rule of faith', obey the Scriptures and preach the Biblical Gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ which is conveyed completely as recorded in Acts 2:38-39. They reject any loyalty to any hierarchy set up my man, or recognized no authority over them, save Jesus Himself as revealed in the Word of God. And this the true church, those who truly follow the commandments of God, will never be destroyed and shall remain a chaste bride unto the time of the Lord Himself, Christ Jesus, comes and takes it unto Himself and there it will remain forever.



3.

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, J. Hastings, 1906, page 170:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

"It is doubted whether the explicit injunction of Matt. 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. ...

But the Trinitarian formula in the mouth of Jesus is certainly unexpected."



4.

A Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc."

Volume 1

Baptism" IV (a.)

James Hastings indicates:

"The original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ[1]’ or ‘the Lord Jesus.’ Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."



5.

A History of Christian Though by Otto Heick (1965)

Volume 1

Page 53

“At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit”



6.

A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker (1947)

Page 58

“The trinitarian baptismal formula… was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”


7.

A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker (1953)[2]

Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University.

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[3] 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 Creed."

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)."



8.

A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker

Page 57-58

Here the author dates the idea that the Holy Spirit is differentiated from Christ from a time early in the second century, He further states, “This appears in the Trinitarian baptism formula, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”



9.

A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998. (http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm)

Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew". William L. Petersen, The Pennsylvania State University:

Matt 28:19-20

In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the "Great Commission" becomes: "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."



10.

A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1999.

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm)

68. In this section I consider the short ending of Matthew in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and a similar short ending that F. C. Conybeare observed in some manuscripts of Eusebius. Conybeare suggested that the short ending in Eusebius, lacking the Trinitarian baptismal formula, was reflected in Justin Martyr (Dial. 39, 53) and Hermas (Sim. 9.27.4) (see Conybeare 1901). Others have added new evidence for a short ending of Matthew, and this evidence is discussed as well.

Reference:

Conybeare, F. C. 1901. "The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 2: 275-288.

73. The Hebrew text reads instead, "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."





B
11.

Black’s Bible Dictionary

“The Trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind.”



12.

Britannic Encyclopedia

Volume 3

Page 82

“Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”





C
13.

Canney’s Encyclopedia of Religions (1970)

Page 53

“Persons were baptized at first ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’… or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’”

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century[4].

Page 83

“The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity in the second century; afterward they were baptized in the name (titles) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”



14.

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger[5]:

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.



15.

Christian Institutions by Dean Stanley

“Doubtless the more comprehensive from in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name… superseded the simpler from of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only.”



16.

Church History by W. W. Walker

Page 57 –58

“The Christian thought at the beginning of the second century the Holy Ghost was differentiated from Christ, but was classified like Him with God. This appears in the Trinitarian baptismal formula, which was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ (Jesus Christ). The Trinitarian formula was frequently in use by the close of the first and beginning of the second century.”

Page 95

“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.”

Page 127-128

“Finally in 325 A.D., Constantine[6] called a council[7] to try and settle the question over the Godhead, whether there were one or three persons in the Godhead; it was also at this council that the Trinitarian water baptism formula was finally recognized by the religious world… After the Council of 381[8],[9], [10], held in Constantinople, the Holy Spirit was recognized as being the third person in the Godhead.”



17.

Commentary on Matthew by Lange

Page 558

Here Lange quotes Meyer, an eminent commentator, as follows: “No trace is to be found of the employment of these words (the name [titles] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) by the Apostolic Church.”





D
18.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church by Professor Kirsopp Lake D. D.

Volume 1

Page 29

“There is no doubt that the writer of Acts regarded baptism as the normal means of entry into the Christian Church. There is also no doubt that he represents an early stage of Christian practice in which baptism was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (or, ‘of Jesus Christ’), not in the triadic formula (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5.)”



19.

Doctrine and Practice of the Early Church by Dr. Stuart G. Hall (1992)[11]

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 the 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 word 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 Derebaptismate (‘On rebaptism’) shows.”





E
20.

Early Christian Baptism And The Creed. A Study In Anti-Nicene Theology (before the rise of the Trinitarian theory) by Joseph Crehan (1950)

“The observance of the Lord’s command to baptize having now been traced back to the Apostles themselves, it remains to ask what likelihood there is of their having made a change in their own practice. If they had begun with baptism in one name (Jesus Christ) would they ever have been able to change over to baptism in the three…?

It should be evident that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the original ‘water baptism’ in the New Testament Church. The Bible declares this emphatically, which would be sufficient evidence, but history also declares this great truth. Shall we refuse the Word of God and the facts as recorded by the historians of the past? Until sufficient proof can substantiate otherwise, we are duly compelled to take the revealed truth of this one day.”



21.

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899)

Volume 1

Page 473

“It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times ‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ or in that ‘of the Lord Jesus.’ This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single – not triple, as was the later creed.”

"This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24)--'for they baptise not into the trinity, but into the death of Christ.'" (Encyclopedia Biblica, article: Baptism).



22.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951)

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 formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the Triune formula is a later addition.”

Volume 11

Pages 384 and 389

“The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the used of the trine name… The earliest from, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…”



23.

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984)

Edited by Walter A. Elwell PhD in New Testament

Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Wheaton College Graduate School

Contributors = 287 with 290 Degrees between them.

Subject: Antiochene Theology

Page 60

“Another presbyter, Theodore, later Bishop of Mopsuestia, developed historical criticism much further. He ­failed to find the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament.”

Page 112

Subject: Baptism

“Deriving from the Greek baptisma, ‘Baptism’ denotes the action of washing or plunging in water, which from the earliest days (Acts 2:41) has been used as the rite of Christian imitation … there can be no doubt that baptism as we know it begins with the baptism of John. Christ himself, by both precedent (Matt. 3:13) and precept (Matt. 28:19) gives us authority for its observance.”

Page 113

“In essence the action is an extremely simple one, though pregnant with meaning. It consists in a going in or under the baptismal water in the name of Christ (Acts 19:5).”

Subject: Creed, Creeds

Page 283

The Three Creeds:

‘Nicene’

“Despite its name, the Nicene Creed must be distinguished from the creed of Nicaea (325). This is the third revision from the original creed of Nicaea, each one was more ‘Trinitarian’ then the last one.”





F
24.

For Christ’ Sake by Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star[12]

Page 103

Here he 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 form the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these word (‘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 (A.D. 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.”



25.

From the Book: IF YOU KNOW THIS THINGS by Rev. Ross Drysdale

In the PREFACE page 1 Pastor Drysdale writes:

This book is written as a response to the arguments raised against the Oneness Pentecostal movement and its distinctive doctrines. In particular, I have addressed the charges leveled against us by Dr. Gregory Boyd, in his book, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, published by Baker Book House.

My book serves as a secondary purpose also, for in it I have endeavored to give a complete exposition of all the major doctrines espoused by Apostolic Pentecostal believers. I have relied upon the Bible as primary source in this endeavor, for it is written, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Is 8:20). I have also used historical facts, early church writings, ecclesiastical history, and quotations from scholars, both Trinitarian and Oneness. In addition to all this, I have also included personal incidents and experiences, which I feel have a bearing on the case.

My heartfelt prayer is that God will cause this book to be an instrument for the conversion of those "outside the message" and an armory of evidence for those within it.

About the Author, page 1 and 2:

A word about Rev. Ross Drysdale: He has been in the ministry for over 30 years, and has pastored the First Pentecostal Church of Inglis for the past twenty-four years. He received his Bachelors Degree in History from Wagner College, Staten Island, New York in 1968. He attained his Master of Arts in German from Jackson State University in 1973. He received his doctorate from Temple Fellowship Institute in California in 1978, and an honorary doctorate in Education from the Organization for Higher Education in 1974. He is a member of three national honor fraternities, Phi Alpha Theta (History), Delta Phi Alpha (German), and Epsilon Delta Chi (Religion). He has taught public school, both elementary and secondary, in New York and Florida and was a co-operating teacher of the College of Education of the University of Florida in 1973. He also served as High School Principal for 10 years. He was licensed as a Professional Counselor in Florida in 1974, and served in that capacity for a year. Rev. Drysdale was ordained in the Spanish United Pentecostal Church and is currently a licensed minister of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Fluent in three languages, Rev. Drysdale evangelizes in both Spanish and English as the Lord directs. He also founded and set in order The First Pentecostal Church of Zambia, Central Africa, an organization consisting of several assemblies dedicated to the Apostolic Truth. He is a published author. His two previous works are "I NEVER SHALL FORGET," the story of his own spiritual odyssey, and "WHAT JEHOVAH SAID" a thorough expose of the Watchtower cult from an Oneness perspective. Rev. Drysdale's radio program, VOICE OF TRUTH, is a popular question and answer broadcast in Central Florida. In his spare time he restores older homes and has won an award for his landscape design. Rev. Drysdale is currently working on another book which will deal with God's divine plan of the ages and its unfolding through the course of human history.



Beginning on Page 85 through 94:

CHAPTER XIX

VOICE OF HISTORY

ARE TRINITARIANS CORRECT WHEN THEY INSIST THERE IS NOT ONE "SHRED OF EVIDENCE" THAT THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA WAS CHANGED? DO UNBIASED HISTORIANS AGREE?

DID A SO-CALLED "ECUMENICAL COUNCIL" OUTLAW JESUS NAME BAPTISM?

IS INVOKING JESUS NAME THE SAME AS USING "MAGICAL INCANTATIONS"?



EARLY CHURCH HISTORY ON JESUS NAME BAPTISM

CYPRIAN AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM

A TREATISE ON REBAPTISM

AMBROSE AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

EARLY WRITINGS AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

DIDACHE

IRENAEUS

MARCION

ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA

RECOGNITION OF CLEMENT

JESUS NAME -- THE ORIGINAL FORMULA

CONTROVERSY ON MATTHEW 28:19

EUSEBIUS

CONYBEARE

MATTHEW 28:19 AND ONENESS ADVOCATES

TRINITARIAN VARIATIONS

THE NAME OF THE LORD METHOD

NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST METHOD

GODHEAD NAME METHOD

DISPENSATIONAL METHOD

MAGICAL INCANTATION OR BIBLICAL INVOCATION?

TERTULLIAN ANSWERS DR. BOYD'S CHARGE

TRINITARIAN GNOSTIC INCANTATION

DR. KITTEL'S FINAL WORD

TOYING WITH THE GREEK

PERSONAL INCIDENTS

DIVINE GUIDANCE FOR JEANNE FOWLER

JOEY BRAY'S REMARKABLE DELIVERANCE



EARLY CHURCH HISTORY ON JESUS NAME BAPTISM Dr. Boyd is in quite a hurry to sweep church history under the rug in order to get on with his multi-explanations of what "in the Name of" could mean. He unilaterally declares that there is not "one shred of evidence" over the introduction of a new baptismal formula in church history. He remarks that the early church "quibbled" about a good many issues, but the use of the Trinitarian formula was not one of them. Amazing how all these raging Godhead debates and Councils have now been reduced to a "quibble." Putting that aside, let us see if there are any "shreds" of controversy lying around in the dusty tomes of early church history.

CYPRIAN AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM Quite a large controversy erupted in the third century between Cyprian, a theologian of North Africa, and the Bishop of Rome, Stephen. Cyprian insisted that "heretics" who were baptized in Jesus Name be rebaptized in the Trinity. Cyprian set off a controversy that drew in others. Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) wrote Cyprian and quoted Pope Stephen as saying that anyone baptized in "the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ." Cyprian argued back against this saying even Baptism in Jesus Name, performed outside the Catholic Church, was invalid because it had not been administered by the Church's jurisdiction. The Pope stubbornly insisted that baptism in the name of Christ did indeed remit sin. I think an argument that involves these Bishops, on three continents over a number of years and results in a decision from the See of Rome; certainly qualifies as 'Shred" of evidence that there was some ": quibbling going on." (See Cyprian, Epistles, 72.00, A.N.F. V, p. 383)

A TREATISE ON REBAPTISM Further evidence comes from an anonymous document of this time period entitled, "A Treatise on Rebaptism," in which the author (believed to be a Third Century Bishop) argued in favour of the validity of Jesus Name baptism, thus hurling another challenge to Cyprian's view. Apparently the debate was quite ongoing. The author concluded his presentation with the statement: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the Name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Spirit." (See, A.N.F., V, p.665-78)

AMBROSE AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM In the Fourth Century Ambrose (340-398) argued baptism in Jesus Name was valid, even though it didn't mention "The Name of the Whole Trinity." (See Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit I, iii, p.43, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Phillip Schaff, editor).

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE By 381, tolerance for the original Jesus Name formula came to an end. The Council of Constantinople condemned "Sabellian" baptism (as they called it) and in addition to the "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" the practice of "one immersion into the death of Christ" was outlawed and the triple immersion in the Trinity was declared the only valid one. (See, A.N.F, VII, p.513) There's more than a shred of controversy going on here. It certainly seems that "two formulas" are locked in battle -- one "in Jesus Name," the other in the name of the Trinity: one, the Trinitarian formula, is decreed the "winner" by imperial force; the other is outlawed. Why was all this passed over so hastily, if we can be that charitable, by Dr. Boyd? Could it be that the next most logical question to arise would be which formula was the first one? And as Trinitarians have long realized, the answer to that question is fatal to their contention.

EARLY WRITINGS AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM Let’s look at some of the early writings and see if there is something among these "shreds" that could throw light on which was the original formula. The earliest witness we have after the close of the Apostolic writings (which are all unanimous on the Jesus Name formula) is the "Epistle to the Corinthians" by Clement of Rome. This is the next generation after the Apostle John, and what does Clement say of the baptismal formula? He refers to it in these words: "Every soul over whom his magnificent and holy name has been invoked." A comparison with Acts 15:17 and 22:16 shows this to be an obvious reference to the only name ever so invoked in Apostolic times -- the Name of Jesus (Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, New York; MacMillan 1970, p. 73).

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS The next early witness we have is "The Shepherd of Hermas" a very popular writing in the early Second Century Church. It was written in Rome (140-145) by an unknown individual. It was recognized in some churches as scripture and read aloud during the service. Here it is baptism in Jesus Name again and again. He speaks of Christian being saved "through water" and "founded on the word of The Almighty and Glorious Name" (Vis. 3:3); and of those who "wish to be baptized in the Name of the Lord" (Vis. 3:7); and "before a man bears the Name of the Son of God, he is dead" but when they are sealed by baptism "they descend into the water dead and they arise alive" (Sim. 9:16). He speaks of being worthy "to bear his name" (Sim. 9:28); and no one enters into the Kingdom of God without the Name of Jesus, which they must receive (Sim. 9:12).

DIDACHE The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is another early Second Century document. It refers to Baptism in this manner: "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (9:5). Another chapter (7:1) also referred to baptism in the "Name of the Lord" but was altered by a copyist who inserted the triune formula instead, and references to "pouring" instead of immersion. That this was a latter mutilation of the text is substantiated by the fact that "pouring" was a much later Catholic innovation. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states that perhaps chapter 7:1 originally read "in the name of the Lord" like chapter 9:5 (vol. 2, p. 378).

IRENAEUS, a famous theologian and early father, who died in 200 A.D., writes: "We are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord" (A.F.N., I, p. 574).

MARCION who broke away from the Church at this time baptized in Jesus Name and his followers continued to use this formula (see A.N.F., V, p.380).

ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA The "Acts of Paul and Thecla" written by an eastern Presbyter in the second century also records an account of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ (see A.N.F., VIII, p. 490). "In the name of Jesus Christ I am baptized on my last day," is one statement that appears there.

RECOGNITION OF CLEMENT The "Recognition of Clement" of late Second Century origin stated: "Jesus instituted baptism by water amongst them, in which they might be absolved of all their sins upon the invocation of his Name" (Recognition 1:39).

JESUS NAME -- THE ORIGINAL FORMULA The early witness of the Church, right after the death of the Apostles, indicates a continued practice of baptism in Jesus Name. It isn't until the time of Justin Martyr that we begin to see another formula, a Triune one, creeping in. In the Second and Third Centuries the two formulas are in use (even as they are today). But it is quite obvious which one is "the new kid on the block." Trinitarian baptism is an unapostolic innovation that eventually replaced the original Jesus Name formula. And that is precisely the reason why unprejudiced scholars and church historians, which we previously cited, are in agreement with our position.

CONTROVERSY ON MATTHEW 28:19Some scholars have even gone so far as to say Matthew 28:19 was a later "interpolation." Professor Harnack dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being "now word of the Lord." (History of Dogma, vol. I, p. 68). Dr. Peake says in Bible Commentary: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words, 'baptizing them into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' we should probably read simply 'into my Name' " (p. 723).Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, sates under the article, Baptism-Early Christian: "The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (textual, literary and historical) is thus distinctly against the view that Matthew 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ." R.R. Williams concurs: "The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging of Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ" (Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29). Black’s Bible Dictionary says: "The Trinitarian Formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind" (article, Baptism).

EUSEBIUS lived between A.D. 264-340. He was a voluminous writer and compiled the earliest history of the ancient Christian Church. He had access to New Testament manuscripts that are much older than the ones we now have. Thus he had the advantage of being much closer to the original writing of Matthew 28:19. Yet he never quoted it in the Triune formula, but in all his citations (which number eighteen or more) he renders the text as: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you." Only after Nicaea does he alter this!

CONYBEARE, the church historian, informs us that Eusebius lived virtually in the greatest Christian library of his time, namely that which Origen and Pamphilus had collected at Caesarea, Eusebius' home. In his library, Eusebius must have handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest uncials that we now have in our libraries. Dr. Westcott says it is owing to the zeal of Eusebius that we know most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. (Westcott, General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 108). Certainly, as a witness, he cannot be ignored. Perhaps the most compelling evidence we get from Eusebius is that after his visit to Constantinople and his attendance at the Council of Nicea, he changed his references to Matthew 28:19 and began quoting it in the triune formula! Thus he switched to the Trinitarian rendering immediately after Nicea, with its imperial threats of banishment to all who reject the newly officialized Trinity doctrine. Hew never knew or quoted any other form but the "My name" rendition until his visit to Nicea. Discretion appears to be the better part of valor in his case!

MATTHEW 28:19 AND ONENESS ADVOCATES Let it be pointed out that the UPCI and other Oneness organizations have no quarrel with Matthew 28:19 as it is found in the Authorized Version. Indeed, it forms an indispensable scriptural link in our revelation, not only of Baptism, but of the Godhead also. For if the Name is one, the person is one. We have shown previously how a complete and enlightening reconciliation of Matthew 28:19 with the passages in Acts is possible, not only from an Oneness perspective, but from a Trinitarian one as well. We have included the textual discussion of Matthew 28:19 and the related witness of Eusebius simply to make the discussion complete and to expose our readers to this facet of the question. I know of no Oneness organization that endorses any other reading of Matthew 28:19 than what we have in the Textus Receptus. However, facts are facts and stubborn things at that, for they refuse to go away. Perhaps archaeology or Biblical Research will yield more light on this interesting phase of the discussion in the future. The beauty of the Oneness position is that regardless of which rendering of Matthew 28:19 is the correct one; the conclusion is still the same -- baptism in Jesus Name. For to us, and the Apostles, Christ's reference to "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was just a longer way of saying "my name." When people finally realize this, the textual conflict may resolve itself almost automatically. For Christ may have uttered both statements on that mountain long ago.

TRINITARIAN VARIATIONS Trinitarian scholars themselves come up with no less than four different methods of reconciling Matthew 28:19 with the passages in Acts, resulting in a literal use of the name of Jesus Christ in baptism today. None of these men believe in the Oneness, but all of them advocate baptism in Jesus Name as the proper way to obey Christ's command in the last chapter of Matthew. We shall review them briefly with the understanding that they are being set forth as additional testimony. None of these four "reconciliation’s" is official Oneness doctrine, and their mention here does not imply endorsement. However, they all possess merit to some degree and are certainly worth our time.

THE NAME OF THE LORD METHOD This is perhaps the oldest explanation for Baptism in Jesus Name in modern times. It even preceded the revelation given in 1913 in California. William Phillips Hall popularized it in his book "Remarkable Biblical Discovery" or "The Name of God According to the Scriptures." This book was originally published by the American Tract Society, and has been republished in abridged form by the Pentecostal Publishing House. The author was a brilliant scholar, studied both Hebrew and Greek, and was well esteemed by Bible Teachers of his day. His book received excellent reviews at the time of publication, and is quoted still. Hall feels his views about the baptismal formula being in Jesus Name were "imparted to him by the Glorified Lord Jesus Christ" (Remarkable Biblical Discovery, P.P.H., St. Louis, 1951, p. 5). Basically, the reconciliation is accomplished as follows: The Name of the Father is Lord (Mark 12:29-30, Is. 42:8), the name of the Son is Lord (Acts 2:36, 1 Cor 8:6), and the Name of the Holy Spirit is Lord (2 Cor. 3:17). Hence, the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is Lord. But this name can only be used in conjunction with the name of Jesus Christ, who is the one mediator and the only way to God. Hence, the apostles always used the full expression "Lord Jesus Christ" which combined the Name of the Godhead (Lord) with that of the mediator (Jesus Christ). See for example 1 Cor. 5:4, 2 Cor. 11:31, Acts 20:21, Acts 16:31, etc. Hall does a remarkable piece of research proofing that the original baptismal formula in Acts was consistently "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" according to the most ancient manuscripts and sources. The references we have today (Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, Lord) are abbreviated forms of the original full name -- Lord Jesus Christ.

NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST METHOD This interpretation was also used occasionally by Oneness expositors in the early days of the Movement. It is only rarely heard in Oneness circles today, but is popular among some Trinitarians. While visiting a very large Trinitarian church in Texas, I purchased the book entitled "The Name of God" by Kevin Conner, published by the author. It was being sold in their bookstore at the time and highly recommended. Rev. Conner’s book carries an endorsement by Rev. K.R. Iverson, Pastor of Bible Temple in Portland, Oregon, a Trinitarian church. The basic explanation is this: The Name of the Father is Lord (Luke 10:21, Is. 42:8), the Name of the Son is Jesus (Matthew 1:21), the Name of the Holy Spirit is Christ (Col. 1:27); thus the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Lord Jesus Christ (Conner, p. 115-116). And, of course, he reaches same conclusions as Hall, namely that the original baptismal formula texts in Acts are all "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." James Lee Beall, Pastor of Bethesda Temple in Detroit, Michigan, espouses the exact same interpretation in his book "Rise to Newness of Life" on pages 60-61, (Rise to Newness of Life, James Lee Beall, Evangel Press, Detroit, Michigan). Pastor Beall is also a Trinitarian and well known Bible teacher and author. He also baptizes in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

GODHEAD NAME METHOD Basically this method teaches that seeing the "fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ" then his name must be the name of the Godhead. In other words, in the Trinitarian scheme of things the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are revealed and manifested in the second person Christ; therefore his name is also the name, which reveals and manifests all three persons. In her book "The Exalted Name" Lucy Knott stated: "In the Lord Jesus Christ dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. The Exalted Name must needs show forth the Father and the Spirit as well as the Son. While the Son bears the exalted name, the Father and Spirit are equally exalted for they are all one in essence" (The Exalted Name, Lucy Knott, Nazarene Publishing House, Kansas City, Missouri 1937, p. 226-227).

DISPENSATIONAL METHOD In response to a question on the correct baptismal formula, Dr.. Pettingill, in his book "Bible Questions Answered," let loose yet another interpretation that results in a Jesus Name baptismal formula. This one is by far the most unusual, but it apparently satisfied the good Doctor, who was a firm believer in Baptism in Jesus Name. He basically argues, from an extreme dispensational point of view, that the Matthew 28:19 command is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. He therefore calls it the "Kingdom Commission." Furthermore he adds: "of course, we are well aware that it is often spoken of as the Great Commission of the Church, but we are convinced that this is an error.” He feels Matthew is "Kingdom" territory and does not apply to the Church Age, but will take effect only after Christ returns. To prove this he says: "Let it be observed also that the baptisms of the Acts are not 'into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' but rather 'into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). ...The Name of the Lord Jesus is in this day and dispensation the name which is above every name, and whatsoever we do in word or deed is to be done in the Name of the Lord Jesus..." (William L. Pettingill, D.D., Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1973, p. 106-107). The subconscious desire of Trinitarians to conform to the obvious pattern of Jesus Name Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, coupled with their unwillingness to part with their Trinitarian Theology has led to this brood of hybrid and novel attempts at reconciliation. Though there is merit in all of them, and much merit in some of them, the simple explanation of our Lord (John 5:43, 14:26) as to what constitutes the one Name of the father, Son and Holy Ghost is to be preferred. And it is that light which is shining brightly in the Oneness movement, which is now encircling the globe in preparation for the return of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

MAGICAL INCANTATION OR BIBLICAL INVOCATION? In his final attempt to discredit those of us who "in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord,” he resurrects an old charge that "magic" and pagan "incantations" designed to manipulate God. That a 20th Century Christian would find common cause with first and second century heathens in opposing the invocation of Jesus name is as startling as it is revolting! On page 144 Dr. Boyd compares our invocation to a "magical formula said during an act." He feels it presents a "return to a form of paganism in which it is believed that deities can be manipulated to behave in certain ways by the utilization of certain incantations and formulas invoked by devotees" (p. 145). "Magical incantations upon which God's forgiveness rests" is how he characterizes our doctrine of "in the name of Jesus." How well does that sit with the thousands, yea millions, of Christians, who over the centuries have sent their earnest petitions heavenward "in Jesus Name?" How would the humble Christian mother, praying for the healing of her suffering child "in Jesus' Name," feel when informed by Dr. Boyd that her use of the "name above every name" was a "pagan incantation," and that what she thought was "faith in that name" was actually an attempt at "manipulating the deity!" And what shall we say of that "Magician" Peter who "verbally" repeated His Jesus Name "incantation" at the Gate Beautiful and "manipulated" the Deity to such an extent that the lame man immediately received strength in his feet and ankle bones and was healed! He himself was so happy with this "incantation" that he went leaping and walking and praising God. Peter's explanation for "verbally" using the name of Jesus differs somewhat from Dr. Boyd's explanation. For when those first century haters of the "formula" asked him: "By what power or by what name" have ye done this, his response was: "ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole" (Acts 4:7-10). That was Peter's explanation of both his "magic trick" and his "incantation!" John Wesley's converts were once accused by a detractor of suffering from "epileptic fits." IN this way he "explained" away the spiritual manifestations occurring in Wesley’s enthusiastic meetings. Wesley's answer was: "Epilepsy? Sinners are converted, backsliders return, doubters are convinced, drunks become sober, and thieves become honest workingmen! If this be epilepsy then I say, Roll On, thou Mighty Epilepsy, Roll On.” So if our use of Jesus Name be magic, then I would say in the tradition of Wesley, "Roll On thou mighty Magic, Roll on!"

TERTULLIAN ANSWERS DR. BOYD'S CHARGE Tertullian faced the same charges in the early Christian Church from pagans, who viewed Christian Baptism as an attempt to gain eternal life through "incanting" of a few words and a ritual bath in water. Anyone who sees only that in Christian baptism, or any other invocation of His Name, has very myopic vision indeed! And unfortunately, Dr. Boyd shares the same viewpoint concerning our Baptism in Jesus Name as those early pagans espoused, and the same answer Tertullian gave is still applicable: "Yet what a miserable incredulity is this which leads you to deny to God His special properties" (Simplicity With Power, Tertullian, de Baptism, p.2). Jesus Christ forever negated the charge leveled against our use of the name, by Dr. Boyd and others, when he said: "If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14:14). If that's "incantation" and "manipulation" so be it! More on this so-called "magic" formula is brought out in John 16:24: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." We ask "in His Name" and our joy is quite full. Christ had just previously defined the nature of this "incantation -- manipulation" so called, when he said in verse 23 "Whatsoever ye shall as the father My Name, He will give it to you." Dr. Boyd's argument therefore is not wit us, but with the Father!

TRINITARIAN GNOSTIC INCANTATION If Dr. Boyd is serious about his aversion to "pagan incantations" in Christianity; he doesn't have to look any further than his own Trinitarian faith. For the Nicene Creed, which is "incanted" in many Trinitarian churches as part of the liturgy, has a Gnostic pagan phrase at its heart! I quote from "The Heretics" by Walter Nigg. Commenting on the phrase, "one in essence with the Father," in the Nicene Creed, he writes: of course, this had the defect of having been originally a gnostic phrase, and one which had no precedence in the Bible." (p. 127). What logic is it that would bind on all Christendom a pagan gnostic phrase, repeated continually in a creed; and yet at the same time ridicule the verbal invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, calling it "pagan magic?" Why would anyone want to put himself in the same class as that bitter Christ-hating Sanhedrin which ordered Peter "not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus" (See Acts 4:18)? That's the real intent of all this nonsensical twaddle about "magic" And "incantation" and "manipulation." It's the same Spirit that fuels their "no baptismal formula" heresy. It is an outright and disgusting attempt to silence the Name of Jesus from being verbally uttered. The devils of Hell couldn't be more pleased! And there can be no doubt as to who the real author of this theory is! Our response is the same as Peter's and John's, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). We too have a creed, but it doesn't come from the Gnostics, it comes from the Paul: "and whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col. 3:17).

DR. KITTEL'S FINAL WORD In G. Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” p. 255, he writes concerning the expression "calling on the Name": "The Hebrews expression 'calling on the name of the Lord' originally signified 'To invoke the deity with the Name Yahweh' and still bears traces of a magical constraint which can be exercised by utterance of the Name... In the Old Testament, of course, the invocation bears the weaker sense of 'calling on Yahweh' i.e., worshipping him... and the magical notion disappears. Indeed, misusing the Name of God in magic and incantation is expressly forbidden in the Decalogue... Yahweh refuses to be conjured up by the utterance of his name. He promises his coming at the appointed shrines when he is called upon there... Thus the Name of Yahweh is not an instrument of magic; it is a gift of revelation. This does not rule out the fact that uttering or calling on Yahweh's name implies faith in his Power..."The Oneness position exactly! JESUS SAID: "I AM COME IN MY FATHER'S NAME AND YE RECEIVE ME NOT..." (JOHN 5:43). THIS IS PROOF THAT CHRIST BEARS HIS FATHER'S NAME, A NAME WHICH HE INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER (HEB. 1:4). WHEN WE INVOKE HIS NAME WE ARE NOT USING MAGIC, BUT FAITH!

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED IN THE TITLES FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST. THEY RECEIVED CERTIFICATES SIMILAR TO THIS ONE. IS THERE ONE EXAMPLE OF ANYONE IN THE BIBLE BEING BAPTIZED IN THE TITLES?

TOYING WITH GREEK In a desperate attempt to stifle discussion on Baptism in Jesus Name, certain Trinitarians of late have taken to using the Greek in their argument. Though their error has been corrected repeatedly in the past, they will not cease employing it. These "lower lights" keep burning, but they send no gleam of truth "across the waves." Their basic contention is that the Greek expression rendered "in the name" in Matt 28:19, is different from the Greek expression in Acts 2:38, which is also translated into English as "in the name." Thus they contend that Matt 28:19 actually says to be baptized "into" the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whereas Peter's command is merely to be baptized "in" the name of Jesus. Peter's words are thus interpreted to only mean "by the authority of Jesus," while Christ's words are said to be the actual formula. Of course, any reputable Greek scholar would inform them that there is no difference between the two expressions; they are equivalent to each other. But if these so-called "Masters of Greek" had done their homework, they would have found that Paul commanded the Ephesian disciples to be baptized "into" the name of the Lord Jesus in Acts 16:6. The exact same Greek expression is used here as in Matt 28:19, "into the name." This collapses their quibble entirely, and they should apologize to their reading public. They are without excuse, because John Paterson pointed this out to them in his book, The Real Truth about Baptism in Jesus Name, away back in 1950. Did they think enough time had elapsed and it was safe to turn this thrice-resuscitated argument loose on their unsuspecting readers yet again? One can only hope that the lid is finally nailed shut on this nonsense. WHEN THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE BIBLE IS PROPERLY ANALYZED, IT PROVES BAPTISM "INTO THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST" WAS THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY FORMULA.

PERSONAL INCIDENTSI realize that subjective personal, experiences, no matter how spectacular, cannot replace the Word of God as a doctrinal guide. However, such experiences, when supported by clear Biblical precedent, should be taken into consideration as corroborating evidence. Having established the scriptural veracity of Baptism in Jesus' Name, I would now like to recount two remarkable incidents which occurred in my ministry relative to the doctrine in question.

DIVINE GUIDANCE FOR JEANNE FOWLER In the summer of 1976, I was teaching my Sunday School Class when a very frail woman entered the church and staggered down the aisle. She seated herself near the front of the church and waited patiently for the lesson to end. Finally she raised her hand, apologizing for taking up my time, and requested to say something. The woman seemed to be in earnest about something, so I consented. She informed me that she had cancer and could only live a few more weeks. She was greatly concerned about her soul and had been repenting and asked God to forgive her. She had read where you needed to be baptized to be saved in Mark 16:16 and so had packed a change of clothes, and with great physical effort, had driven to a nearby church. She mentioned the name of the Church and I recognized it as a local Trinitarian assembly. She continued with her story and told how she had entered the church and asked the pastor to baptize her. He agreed to do this after the service, and instructed her to be seated and join them in worship. Then something remarkable happened. While seated in that Trinitarian church she heard the Lord speak to her very clearly and distinctly. He said to get up and leave the service at once, because they could not baptize her correctly there, and she must go somewhere else. Startled, but obedient, she quietly slipped out. She drove her car, not knowing where to go next. When she came near by church the same voice of the Lord told her to stop and go in and request baptism, for here she would be baptized in the proper way. As we sat and listened to her most unusual story, a holy awe settled over the congregation. I myself was astonished at such an amazing recitation. But more was to come. With genuine sincerity in her eyes she looked at me and asked: "Pastor, what is the difference between your baptism and that other church's? God would not let me be baptized there and I want to know why?" I explained that even though we both immersed candidates in water, our church did it in Jesus Name, which is the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. The other church merely repeated the titles without mentioning the name. She readily saw this truth and then realized why God had led her to our church. "IN all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee" (Exodus 20:24). I baptized her in Jesus Name for the remission of sins. Shortly after that she passed on to her reward. I am confident that at this very moment as I write her testimony and her face comes up before me in memory, she is in heaven worshipping the One-Personal God, our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Name she took on in baptism.

JOEY BRAY'S REMARKABLE DELIVERANCEA second incident occurred while I was attending a Pentecostal convention in Houston. I met a young man who needed a job. I knew of an employment opportunity in Galveston and agreed to drive him there. I thought it would be a good opportunity to witness to him. On the way he began to speak in a very disjointed and incoherent fashion. He claimed to be able to understand the speech of animals and to get "revelations" from them. He asked me if that was of God. I told him he had a demon. He tried to flee the car but we were on a high bridge by this time and I refused to stop. When we got to Galveston, about midnight, I stopped the car alongside their famous sea wall. We both got out. I told him he was demon possessed and needed to be delivered. He agreed and fell down at my feet sobbing and holding me fast by the ankles so I could not leave. I began rebuking the spirit that was in him. The few remaining tourists that straggled past us that night gave us a wide berth! I'm sure it presented quite a sight. The spirit came out of him and a great calm swept over him. I knew there had been a change. Next I led him in a prayer of repentance as he turned his life over to Christ. His next remark caught me by surprise. He said: "Shouldn't I be baptized?" I responded affirmatively, but told him I did not have a church in this city and therefore had no access to a baptistery. He pointed to the vast Gulf of Mexico that stretched before us on all sides, and like the Ethiopian of old, he asked why this would not be sufficient. (Acts 8:36). Somewhat embarrasses for not having realized what a mighty "baptistery" God had provided us, I told him it was indeed sufficient. There was no one on the beach at this late hour and the tide was coming in. In the moonlight I caught a glimpse of his shirt. It had a satanic symbol on it! I told him I could not baptize him with such an evil sign on him. He agreed and took the shirt off and threw it on the sand. We proceeded into the water and I immersed him in the saving name of Jesus. As he came out of the water he began speaking in tongues! What a wonderful time we had! When we returned to the shore, the shirt was not at the spot we had left it. It had completely disappeared. IN its place lay a clean new white towel neatly folded, soft and dry. Just as if an angel had brought it down for him. He used it to dry off with, and both of us were convinced this was a miraculous sign from God: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new" (1 Corinthians 5:17). And this apparently includes Tee-shirts (at least in this case anyhow). We separated, but several months later I received a letter from him: Dear Brother Ross, I am in Chicago now. I have no place to live and I walk the streets looking for work. But I know God is with me. The wind here blows very cold sometimes, but I don't mind. I just pray to God and talk to him in unknown tongues, just like I did in the Gulf that night, then I feel so much better. I know he is with me. Your brother, Joey Later the same young man came to Florida and confirmed his testimony before my entire congregation. Multiplied thousands of people around the world could add their testimonies to these two, as top how God led them into this remarkable truth of the one true name of God, revealed in water baptism. Soon the whole world will believe nothing else! "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered; and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass t pass out of the land. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name One." (Zech. 13:2; 14:9). THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR PERSONAL TESTIMONIES OF HOW THE LORD REVEALED TO THEM THE TRUE BIBLE BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME. THESE TESTIMONIES ARE PRESERVED IN THE HEADQUARTERS AND VARIOUS CHURCHES OF THE ONENESS MOVEMENT.



Pages 111 through 125

CHAPTER XV

THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON

DID THE SON OF GOD EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH AT BETHLEHEM?

WHO WAS THE MYSTERIOUS "ANGEL OF THE LORD" MENTIONED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?



A CHALLENGE TO ONENESS

DID THE SON OF GOD PRE-EXIST

IDEAL PRE-EXISTENCE

PRE-EXISTENCE AS THE "WORD OF GOD"

THE MYSTERY OF THE LOGOS

THE VOICE OF THE LORD

"THE BODY OF HEAVEN"

"THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD"

"THE FORM OF GOD"

THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND WAS GOD

JOHN PATERSON COMMENTS

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH APPEARS TO JACOB

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH AND MOSES

THE ANGEL WHO LEADS TO THE PROMISED LAND

THE ANGEL WITH GOD'S NAME

THE ANGEL WHO CAN FORGIVE SIN

THE ANGEL WHO MUST BE OBEYED

THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD AS REDEEMER

THE ANGEL OF GOD AS SAVIOUR

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS CHRIST

THE ANGEL AS GOD'S IMAGE // MANOAH'S INCIDENT

JACOB'S INCIDENT

JOSHUA'S INCIDENT

THE ANGEL WHO SPOKE AS GOD AND MAN

FROM "WORD OF GOD" TO "SON OF GOD"

TRUE MEANING OF MORPHE

WHY THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH

WHY IS THE PRE-EXISTENT CHRIST CALLED "SON"?

IS THIS DOCTRINE ONENESS?

LET THE FOUNDERS SPEAK

G.T. HAYWOOD

JOHN PATERSON

FRANK J. EWART

C.H. YADON

THEODORE FITCH

OSCAR VOUGA

GORDON MAGEE

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE WORD

TRINITARIAN THEORY

ONENESS THEORY

FIRST BORN AND FIRST BEGOTTEN

EARLY FATHERS

THE APOSTLES CREED

THE NICENE CREED

ATHANASIAN CREED

CHALCEDONIAN CREED

JUSTIN MARTYR

ATHENAGORA

MODERN DAY WITNESS TO THE LOGOS DOCTRINE

CHRIST'S OWN WORDS

IS THE WORD IN ANY SENSE ETERNAL?

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH, WHO APPEARED FREQUENTLY IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES, WAS ALSO KNOWN AS THE WORD OF GOD. HE WAS THE "BODY OF HEAVEN" IN WHOM THE INVISIBLE FATHER DWELT.



A CHALLENGE TO ONENESS Dr. Boyd throws out a challenge to Oneness believers concerning the question of the Pre-existence of the Son of God. He cites a number of texts from John's Gospel, Paul's writings, and the epistle to the Hebrews, which seems to teach a Pre-existence of Christ as Son. Dr. Boyd then asks, "How does Oneness Theology handle these texts?" (Boyd, p. 37). It is an honest question, and deserves a comprehensive answer. In this chapter we shall provide it.

DID THE SON OF GOD PRE-EXIST? To the question whether the Son of God pre-existed, the Bible answer is yes. He did Pre-exist. But how? In Two ways. We shall first look at his Pre-existence in the Foreknowledge of God.

IDEAL PRE-EXISTENCE God is not bound by the limits of time as we are. We think and operate in terms of past, present and future. God is an eternal Present. He calls "those things which be not, as though they were" (Rom 4:17). Thus in God's mind or plan, the Son of God "existed" countless ages before He was ever born of Mary. He had "existence" in God's foreknowledge. In fact, the crucifixion is spoken of as having occurred before the "foundation of the world." (Rev 13:8). How could "the lamb" be "slain from the foundation of the world?" In God's mind and foreknowledge! Even the Church is said to have existed in God's mind "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4-5). We Christians are said to have been given grace "before the world began" (1 Tim. 1:9). This occurred in God's mind. In actuality we were not given grace until we responded to the Gospel call. So also it is with the Son. He existed in God's mind, long before His birth took place. "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things...but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (1 Peter 1:18-20). The Son of God was foreordained in the mind of God, but did not take actual existence, or become manifest, until these last times. The Son's idealistic existence was in God's mind from all eternity. His actual existence in time however is pin pointed for us in scripture. Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, The Son's actual existence began when He was born of a woman, and this agrees with Luke 1:35. The Bible says in two places that the Son was "made". One is here in Gal. 4:4, where he is said to be made of a woman. The other is in Hebrews 2:9: Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels If the Son is "made" how could he be eternal?

PRE-EXISTENCE AS "THE WORD OF GOD” The idea of the Son existing "ideally" in the mind of God does explain a number of texts, especially those I have cited. However there are also a number of scriptures that speak of Christ in the Old Testament that cannot be explained on this basis. We read of God "who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:9); and God who "hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son... by whom also he made the worlds " (Heb. 1:2); and Christ Himself speaks of the glory He had with the Father "before the world was" (John 17:5). The answer to these texts lie in the scripturally revealed fact that the Son of God did Pre-exist, but not as the Son of God, for that would be the same as having a Pre-existed male human being. No, the Son Pre-existed as "the Word of God" ("the Logos" in Greek). He, who was the Word of God in the Old Testament, became the Son of God in the New Testament. The Son of God, the male person born of Mary, did not pre-exist as a Son, per se. That would mean a pre-existent human being. But that does not negate the fact the He who was the Son of God in His earthly sojourn, had existed before in a different form!

THE MYSTERY OF THE LOGOS John speaks of the Word (Logos in Greek) who was "in the beginning with God" and yet "was God." What was the Logos, or the Word of God? As we have seen, the Son of God was God's visible body, form, or Temple in the New Testament times. God dwelt in Christ His Son and used Him as His own body. Whoever saw Christ saw the Father, for God was in Christ. The Bible also teaches that God had a visible body or form in Old Testament times as well. It was not a human body of flesh, but it was a glorified body. And just as God dwelt in the human body of the Son of God after Bethlehem, so also did he dwell in the celestial body of the Word of God before Bethlehem. Whether in the Old Testament as the Word of God or in the New Testament as the Son of God, Christ has always been the visible Temple of the invisible Spirit. An Oneness "God in Christ" exists in both Testaments.

THE VOICE OF THE LORD The glorious "Word" was the body God used when he "walked" with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening. Naturally He would have to use some form or body to fellowship with them. They couldn't "walk" with an omnipresent Spirit! Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. The "Voice of the Lord" is the same as "the Word of God". It was God's vehicle of visual communication with His creation.

"THE BODY OF HEAVEN” In the time of Moses, the Elders of Israel were given a view of the Logos. Ex. 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. They could not have seen God in his Spirit nature, for a Spirit is necessarily invisible. Yet they saw God's feet, and described his visible form as the "body of heaven." God has only had two bodies. In the Old Testament times it was the Body of Heaven, but in the New Testament times it was the Body of Humiliation (Phil. 2:8), which the world crucified and pierced!

"THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD” The Word of God was God's visible image in the Old Testament times. He was the "brightness of his glory and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). He was the "image of the invisible God and the firstborn of every creature" (Col. 1:15). When men saw Him they saw God: Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Did he see God as Spirit? Of course not. A Spirit doesn't have a "face". What he saw was the Word, who was God's visible image and as such did have a "face."

"THE FORM OF GOD” God had a visible form in the Old Testament times. Jesus spoke of God's "shape" as well as His "voice" (John 5:37). Paul mentions the "form of God" in Philip. 2:6. A pagan king once saw the "form" that was "like" the Son of God (Daniel 3:25). This "form" was the "Word of God." This "form of God" was later changed into the "form of Man" at the Incarnation for the purpose of redemption (Phil. 2:2-8).

THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND WAS GOD Now we understand the meaning of John's prologue. The Word, or God's visible form, was "with God," just as our "bodies" are "with us" wherever we are. And yet the Word "was God." Because God dwelt in that "form," used it as His visible Temple, it can be said that the Word "was God." Wherever this Form appeared, it was God Himself appearing. The same situation obtains in the New Testament dispensation. Christ, the Son of God is also God's body or form. The Father is said to be "with" Christ (John 8:29), and also to be "in" Him (John 10:38), and Christ is thereby said to be God (John 20:28). Whoever saw Christ saw God (John 14:8-10). God in Christ makes Christ God. God in the Word, made the Word God. It was the "voice" of God, speaking out of his "shape" or visible image (John 5:37) that said: "Let there be light, and there was light." This is how the worlds were created by the Word of God (Heb. 11:3). Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. God’s glorious visible Form, the Word or Logos, spoke and creation resulted. John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And this Word was eventually changed into flesh and became the "Son of God". "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

JOHN PATERSON COMMENTS John Paterson was one of the most insightful writers on Oneness topics. His early work, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," was used as a Godhead textbook in the infancy of the Oneness Movement. He summarized the doctrine of the Logos in very clear and logical terminology. He writes: "How did God show Himself to Abraham, eating and drinking before him? (Gen. 18:6-8,33); or How did Moses see his back parts? (Ex 33:23), or how did the elders of Israel see the God of Israel, and did eat and drink? (Ex. 24:10,11). In the answer to these questions lies the secret of the Mystery of God: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made' (John 1:1-3). In the beginning! That refers to Genesis 1:1, which reads, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' "Now what is a 'word'? Is it not the expression of an inward abstract thought in a substantial concrete form. It means this in English, but as a matter of fact, the Greek word Logos means not only the expression of the thought, but also the inward thought itself. So we conclude that the Word was the visible expression of the invisible God; in other words, the invisible God embodied in visible form; and not only this, but the word was, essentially nothing less than the Eternal God Himself, as it is written 'The Word was God' " (John 1:1). (John Paterson, God in Christ Jesus, p. 9-10).

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD The Pre-Incarnate Christ also appeared frequently in the Old Testament times as the Jehovah Angel, or Angel of the Lord in the KJV. The Angel of the Lord was none other than the Word of God. He was the Form or Image of the Invisible God, which we have already discussed. The "body of heaven" which Moses and the elders of Israel saw, the Logos or Word of God, was none other than the glorious Angel of Jehovah. In the Old Testament dispensation the invisible God was embodied in the visible form of Christ as the Angel of God. In New Testament times the same God is embodied in the physical form of Christ as the Son of God. Christ has always been God's Temple or body, whether as the Angel of God, or as Son of God. The same Oneness truth prevails throughout recorded (and unrecorded) history, namely that the one divine invisible Spirit has always had his physical Person in whom He dwelt and manifested Himself. This Christ, whether as Angel of God or Son of God has always been the Mediator between the invisible God and his visible creation. An examination of some of the frequent appearances of the Angel of Jehovah will prove very enlightening on this theme. It must always be borne in mind that we are not talking about "two distinct persons in the Godhead." For God the Father is not a Person; he is a divine Omnipresent Spirit (John 4:24). Christ, whether as Angel of God or Son of God, has always been God's Only Person, God's visible Image. God the invisible Spirit has always embodied his essential deity and nature in the visible body of His "Person," the Christ. THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WRESTLED WITH JACOB UNTIL DAWN. JACOB DECLARED, "I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE."

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH APPEARS TO JACOB In Gen. 28:13 Jacob had a vision of God at Bethel. God declared to him at this time that He was "The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac." Twenty-One years later the Angel of God appeared to Jacob and told him that He was the God that appeared to Him at Bethel (Gen. 31:11-13). Thus the Angel of God is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac! Shortly after this a "man" wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32:24). This mysterious "man" is called the "face of God." What Jacob saw was the Logos, the "image of the invisible God." This was the pre-incarnate Christ, then known as the Angel of the Lord. The Prophet Hosea speaking about Jacob's unusual "wrestling match" said, "Yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed: he wept and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel... even Jehovah God of hosts: Jehovah is his memorial" (Hosea 12:4-5 margin). Here we see that the mysterious "man" who wrestled with Jacob, as a man, is none other than the Angel of the Lord, and in His divine nature, Jehovah God Himself! Jacob wrestled with God in Christ! And this is the same One who is described as the "Word" who was in the Beginning, and was God! There can be no other conclusion. Jacob's mysterious "man" is identified by Hosea as the Angel of God. And this Angel of God is defined by the same prophet as Jehovah God.

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH AND MOSES The Angel of the Lord figures prominently in the life of Moses and in the Wilderness History of Israel. In Exodus 3:2 the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. When Moses drew nigh the bush the Angel said, "I am the God of thy Father, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:6). It is clear that the Angel was Christ, the visible image of the invisible God, because the same verse says: "And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God."

THE ANGEL WHO LEADS TO THE PROMISED LAND God promised to lead the children of Israel by means of His Angel manifestation. "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared." Christ as the Angel of God led the earthly Israel to an earthly Promised Land. But in this dispensation, Christ as the Son of God, leads the "spiritual Israel," His church, to their heavenly home: "In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2).

THE ANGEL WITH GOD'S NAME Christ has always been the divine name bearer. This is because wherever the fullness of the divine nature is embodied, there God's throne is also. Christ, the human Son of God, was the Temple of the embodied Father, hence he had the Father's name, and announced the fact in John 5:43: "I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not. “The Angel of God, Christ in the Old Testament, was also the visible Temple of the Father: "Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Ex 23:21). God’s name was in Him, because God was in Him! Who else has ever borne the Father's name but Christ? And how else could the divine Father Spirit transfer His name to a person except by incarnation or embodiment? The parallels between the Word of God (the Angel) and the Son of God are drawing ever closer.

THE ANGEL WHO CAN FORGIVE SIN When Christ was here on earth as the Son of God he shocked the Pharisees by forgiving sin. In Luke 5:20 he said to the palsied man: "Thy sins are forgiven thee. “The Pharisees remonstrated, reasoning that only God could forgive sins. Christ responded to them by announcing: "The Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins" (Luke 5:24) Because God the Father was incarnate in the Son, the Son could forgive sins. "Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:50). This makes Christ, the God-man, the mediator between sinful men and a sinless God. The Angel of God in the Old Testament also "had power upon the earth" to forgive sins: "Provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions" (Ex. 23:21). To power to retain or pardon transgressions was a prerogative of the Angel of the Lord. This Angel had this power because God Himself was embodied in Him and functioned through him. Just as the "God-man" was a mediator between sinners and God in the New Testament times, so also was the "God-Angel" a similar mediator in Old Testament times. In either dispensation, Christ (whether as Word of God or Son of God) is the One mediator and the only "Person" with power to forgive sins. And the basis for this is the same in both time periods; namely, God (with His name) was in Christ!

THE ANGEL WHO MUST BE OBEYED The Angel of God is to be obeyed as God Himself: "Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not" (Ex. 23:21). Why is it? Because the words of the Angel are actually the words of God Himself who is embodied in Him: "But if thou shalt obey his voice, and do all that I speak..." (Ex 23:22). The Angel's "voice" is actually God "speaking". When the same Angel-Word was made flesh ("and the Word was made flesh"), and became the Son of God, the exact same situation prevailed. The Son said: "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). God has always used His Form or Image as His "Mouthpiece," so to speak. The results of obeying the Angel of God are the same as obeying the Son of God: deliverance from enemies (v. 22-23), a blessing through bread (Lord's Supper) and water (Baptism in Jesus' name), and divine healing (v. 25), and of course a new home on "the other side of Jordan."

THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT The most positive identification of the Son of God with the pre-incarnate Angel of the Lord is found in Malachi's prophecy. In the first verse of the third chapter we read: "Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me. “This was clearly John the Baptist who was the preparing messenger for Christ, the Son of God. Mark 1:2 applies this to John the Baptist. Then the next thing that is to happen is "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly appear in His temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye delight in" (Mal. 3:1 margin). The Angel of the Lord, who walked the earth in a "celestial body”, would now become the Son of God in a new "flesh blood" human body. The Angel of God had delivered to Israel the Old Covenant (Heb. 12:25-26, Acts 7:53, Gal. 3:19). Now the same Angel or Messenger of the Covenant appears on earth as a man to deliver the New Covenant: "This is the Covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more" (Heb. 10:16-17). In the Old Testament as the Angel of God, the Christ delivered the Old Covenant to the Old Israel. Now in the New Testament, as the Son of God, He delivers the New Covenant to the New Israel.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD AS REDEEMER The Angel of the Lord is also designated as the "Angel of His Presence": "In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of His presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them..." (Is 63:9). And this verse is given as an explanation of the preceding one which said Jehovah "was their Saviour" (Is. 63:8). What does it mean when the Jehovah-Angel is called the Angel of God's Presence? It means exactly what it implies. God's very presence, his essence or nature, is embodied in this Angel. The Angel is God manifested in a visible Form. We cannot strictly call it an "incarnation" for that refers only to human bodies. But, as John Paterson put it: "While no thoughtful person would suggest that He took flesh prior to Bethlehem, His appearances in bodily form from the dawn of human history certainly...indicate something akin to an incarnation" (Paterson, p. 47). God is so embodied in His Word or Angel that we can truthfully say: "the Word was God. “The Angel-Word was the visible Temple of the otherwise invisible presence of God; hence he is the Angel of His Presence. Deity embodied in a glorious Personal Form. When the "Word was made flesh" we have the same deity or "presence" incarnate in a human form, the Son of God: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). God in His Angel was the means by which He reconciled Israel. God in His Son is the means by which He reconciles the world!

THE ANGEL OF GOD AS SAVIOUR The same passage in Isaiah indicates that the Angel of God is the Saviour (Is. 63:8,9). There can be only One Saviour, and that is Jehovah. Isaiah himself told us that: "I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside me there is no Saviour." (Is 43:11). The Word of God, Jehovah in Angel Form, desired to save Israel, to be their Saviour. But the Son of God, Jehovah in human Form, desires to save all mankind: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32).

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS CHRIST Some may wonder if it is correct to refer to the Angel of the Lord as "Christ". They have assumed this is a New Testament designation only. Christ is Greek for the "Anointed One." The Hebrew form is "Messiah", and as such was certainly used in the Old Testament, used by the Jews of Christ's day, contained the Word Christ (Christos-Greek). The Angel of God, being the embodiment of both God's nature and name, was certainly the "Anointed One" or "Christ" in Old Testament times. In fact, the Bible specifically refers to the Angel of the Lord as Christ, and in more than one reference. In 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul designates the Angel of the Lord that was with Israel in the wilderness, guiding and protecting them, as "Christ." "And they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. “When that same Angel of God was "provoked" (Ex 23:21) and "pardoned not their transgressions," but sent fiery serpents into the camp, "much people of Israel died" (Numb 2:6). Yet Paul says it was Christ that had been "provoked" or "tempted," again clearly identifying the Angel with Christ: "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents" (1 Cor 10:9). Moses was called by an Angel of God in the burning bush to forsake all and identify with God's people and to deliver them (Ex. 3:2-12). This he did. The writer of Hebrews describes it as "esteeming the reproaches of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." (Heb. 11:26). How could Moses "esteem the reproaches of Christ" if there were no Christ? And who could this Christ be, if it wasn't the Angel that spoke to him "face to face" (Ex. 33:11), whose "glory" he saw (Ex. 33:18-19). For the "glory" of God is found in the "face" of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). Peter refers to the Holy Spirit, which operated in the Old Testament Prophets as the "Spirit of Christ" (1 Peter 1:11). How could there be a "Spirit of Christ" back then, if there was no Christ Himself! Remember, Isaiah talks about the Angel of His Presence, and how Israel vexed "his holy Spirit" (Is. 63:9-10). Apparently the Angel administered the divine Spirit to Israel, for it was "His" Holy Spirit, and thus, Peter calls "the Spirit of Christ." Hence the Angel was Christ. Isaiah saw the Angel of the Lord seated on the throne in heaven as the embodiment of God (Isaiah 6:1). Yet John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and wrote of it (John 12:41).

THE ANGEL AS GOD'S IMAGE The Angel of the Lord appeared unto Gideon (Judges 6:12). The words the Angel spoke are identified as Jehovah speaking directly to Gideon: "And Jehovah said unto him." (v. 16). The Angel performed a miracle and then disappeared out of sight (v. 21). In verse 22 we read: "And when Gideon perceived that he was an Angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas O Lord (Jehovah) God! For because I have seen an Angel of the Lord face to face" (v. 22). He feared death, for he knew to see the face of the Jehovah Angel was the same thing as seeing the face of Jehovah, "and no man shall see my face and live." But Jehovah again spoke to Gideon and assured him he wouldn't die: "Peace be unto thee, fear not, thou shalt not die." (v. 23).

MANOAH'S INCIDENT In Judges 13 the Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah's wife and assures her that she will conceive. The woman describes her visitor to her as husband as "a man of God" with the "countenance of an Angel of God." Manoah prayed that the Heavenly visitor return to give them more instructions (v.8). The Angel of God did return and gave them more information about their forthcoming son, Sampson. As the Angel was about to leave, Manoah asked what the Angel's name was (v. 18). The Angel said his Name was "Wonderful" (v. 18 margin). This clearly identifies the Angel as Christ, the image of the invisible God, for he is called "Wonderful" in Is. 9:6. Are there two "Wonderfuls?" Not likely. When the Angel of the Lord left, it finally "dawned on" Manoah they had actually been communing with God in His Angelic Form as the Word, and Manoah exclaimed: "We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

JACOB'S INCIDENT We already reviewed the incident when Jacob wrestled with the Angel of God (Gen. 32:24-30). He, too, asked the Angel for His name. His request was denied. The Angel said His Name was "Wonderful," meaning "secret". It would not be revealed until Christ was born at Bethlehem, when we hear: "Call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). Jacob also recognized he had seen the Word Image, God's visible Angelic Form, for he said "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (v. 30). IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THE "LOGOS", OR ANGEL OF THE LORD, APPEARED TO THE PATRIARCHS AND DISPENSED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES. THIS ANGEL OF GOD BECAME THE SON OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

JOSHUA'S INCIDENT The same "Word" (Logos) appeared as the Angel of the Lord to Joshua and identified Himself as the "Captain of the Lord's Host" (Joshua 5:14). He then commanded Joshua to worship Him, which he did! (Joshua 5:15). There can only be One "Captain" and his name is identified in Hebrews 2:10 as Christ! As the Angel of God, Christ was Israel's Captain for earthly warfare. But now as Son of God, Christ is the Captain of our salvation in spiritual warfare! In both dispensations it was necessary for the "captain" to come to earth and "appear" before his "troops," and lead them in battle!

THE ANGEL WHO SPOKE AS GOD AND MAN Zechariah relates a mystifying incident involving Joshua the High Priest (not the same Joshua who succeeded Moses). He saw Joshua the High Priest standing before the "Angel of the Lord" and Satan standing on the right hand, resisting him (Zech. 3:1). The Angel, speaking as a "man" would, rebukes Satan saying: "Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan, even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee" (v. 2). But just a few verses later, the same Angel speaks in the first person as Jehovah God Himself saying: "If thou wilt keep my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house" (v. 7). The Angel of the Lord appears to be speaking from two perspectives. One, as the messenger or Angel, and the other as the deity embodied in that Angel. In the New Testament Christ also spoke from two perspectives. As the Son he said: "I can of my own self do nothing." But as the embodied Father he said: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." In the first chapter of Zechariah we encounter the same phenomenon. The Angel, speaking as a "man" would, asked God; "O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem" (Zech 1:12). Yet in the second chapter the same Angel replied in the First Person, as Jehovah God Himself, saying: "For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about" (Zech. 2:5). This we see that God's Word in the Old Testament on occasions can speak from his nature or perspective as the Angel of God, the Messenger, or He may speak out of the divine nature resident in Him as Father. The same pattern we notice in the New testament concerning our Lord, who sometimes spoke as a man, as when he inquired about Lazarus' burial site: "Where have they laid him," and sometimes spoke as God, as when he commanded Lazarus to rise: "Lazarus, come forth!" The same "dual speech" from the one Person is glimpsed in the incident of Abraham offering up Isaac. When Abraham had demonstrated his faith, the Angel of God addressed him thusly: "I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou has not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me" (Gen. 22:12). First he speaks of God as apparently distinct -- "I know thou fearest God." And then the same Angel speaks directly as God Himself: "Thou hast not withheld thy son...from me. The same "key" of the "Dual natures of Christ," which explains such speech in the New Testament, can also be used to "unlock" the mystery of such speech in the Old Testament. For in both cases we are dealing with the same God in the same Christ.

FROM WORD OF GOD TO SON OF GOD In the history of redemption the time came when he who had been God's "Heavenly body", known as the Word or Angel of God, would become the human Son of God. The Lord, "Whom ye seek," would suddenly come to his human "temple" (Mal. 3:1; John 2:19). God's glorious Personal Form, His Old Testament Image, had to be "laid aside." The price of redemption required the shedding of blood. The Angel of Jehovah, the Word, was a celestial body. (Ex. 24:10). It was not composed of "flesh and blood". It was visible and tangible, but lacked the key elements for salvation, namely blood that could be shed, and flesh that could be pierced (Heb. 9:22). It had served its purpose. So the Scriptures tell us that the "Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). This mystery occurred through the process of the Virgin Birth. The glorious body of the Old Testament Word was transformed into a flesh body known as the Son of God. There was no Son of God until the flesh body emerged from the womb of the Virgin Mary: "Therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). "God sent forth His Son made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4). The Bible says that this "Word made flesh," known as the Son of God, "dwelt among us" (John 1:14). The Greek word for dwelt is "tabernacled" or "pitched his tent". Now if the Son of God is a tabernacle or tent, then someone must live in it, for that's what tabernacles are for! And Christ very unmistakably revealed who was living in the tabernacle of his fleshly body: "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). Paul agreed to this when he said: "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). So just as the Word had been God's Temple or body in the Old Testament, so the "Word was made flesh", the Son of God, continues to be the temple of God in New Testament times. Paul talks of this "transformation of bodies" in Philippians the second chapter. He speaks of Christ who had been in the "form of God" and was the visible equivalent of the invisible God in earlier times (Philip. 2:6). This "form" was the Angel of God, and the "Body of Heaven." However Paul tells us that this "body" or "form" was exchanged for the "form of a servant" and the "likeness of a man" (v. 7). This is when the "Word was made flesh" and the whole idea of Christ laying aside the glorious "form of God" and taking upon himself the "fashion of a man" was for the purpose of dying on the cross for our sins (v.8).

TRUE MEANING OF MORPHE It should be mentioned at this point, that much "misinformation" is being circulated by Trinitarians concerning the interpretation of the word "form". The Greek word for "form" in this text is "morphe". While this word may embrace more than just the outward or visible form, its primary meaning is related to visible physical appearance, or outward form. In fact, in the writings of the earliest Latin fathers and in the Latin Vulgate, the word is translated by a Latin phrase that is strictly understood in a physical outward sense. The only other place that "morphe" is used in the Bible is Mark 16:12, and there it clearly refers to Christ's physical visible body. To try and translate "form" as something other than "that which strikes the eye" or "physical body" or "appearance," is simply to mistranslate it. So the "form of God" was a visible tangible body, which could be seen. Christ called it God's "shape" (John 5:37), and said it could be "seen." He ought to know!

WHY THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH God inhabiting the body of the Angelic-Word could never have offered that up on the cross for redemption. So God, through the Incarnation and Virgin Birth, transformed his immortal celestial body into a mortal human body. The "form of God" became the "form of man." And as God has been "incarnate" in the Pre-Bethlehem Angel-Image, so was he also incarnate in his post-Bethlehem human image. God took this body to the cross (Heb. 9:14), offered it for salvation, withdrew from it so it could die (Mark 15:34), and after three days re-entered and resurrected it (John 2:19-20). Now that body, having been resurrected and glorified, is similar to what the One God had in the Old Testament. "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44).It is "flesh and bone" (Luke 24:37) but not "flesh and blood" (1 Cor 15:50). In his new glorious resurrected body, Christ is not only known as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), but has resumed his title as Angel of God also. "There stood by me this night the Angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not..." (Acts 27:23-24)....is Paul's witness. The resurrected Son of God also appears under the title of Angel on occasion in the Book of Revelation. In the tenth chapter of Revelation we read of a mighty Angel "Clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire" (Rev. 10:1). If we compare this with the description of Christ in Revelation 1:13-16 and Revelation 4:2-3, we see it is the same person. Christ Himself made reference to his previous glorious "form" which he possessed in ancient times when he spoke of "the glory" which He had with the Father "before the world was." This was His glory as the Word of God, the "Body of Heaven" which was mediator to all God's universe. His form as Angel of God was "glorious", especially in comparison to the human form in which he now existed, and by which "he humbled Himself, being obedient unto death" (Philip. 2:8). Nevertheless, in his resurrection and glorification Christ regains that glory which he had. "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in Him" (John 13:31).He is again in the Body of Heaven, but with the "reminders of redemption," by which is meant the nail prints in his hands and the wound in his side.

WHY IS THE PRE-EXISTENT CHRIST CALLED "SON”? There are some passages, very few, that refer to the Old Testament Word of God as "Son." One such example is in Hebrews 1:2, which talks of the worlds being created "by the Son." How can this be, if the Son did not exist until the "Word was made flesh" at Bethlehem? The answer is very simple. In these instances the Bible writers are simply talking about the one who would later (at Bethlehem) be known as Son. They do not mean he was Son at that time. They are projecting His birth-acquired title back through time. This is a common practice, even in today's speech. I once saw a film where the narrator said: "This is the cabin where President Lincoln was born." Was he "President" at the time of his birth in that humble cabin? Of course not. But he who would become President, had been born there. In the same way we hear of the High School that President Nixon attended and the football field President Reagan played on. Were they President at the time? Certainly not. They did not become President till long after their High School and football days. The speaker is merely using a title they acquired later in life to more fully describe them. He is projecting a title back in time. So when we hear of the world being created "by the Son" we understand it is the Word that is being referred to and not a pre-existent human being. In other words, he that would later be known as the Son, created the worlds. But he did not do it as "Son". He was the Word at that time. His Son ship acquired title (Son) is being projected back. Even Trinitarians admit this is so: "It is not unusual for Scripture to denominate appellations which do not, in a strictly literal sense, appertain to the entire range of age-times under consideration in the respective contexts. An obvious example occurs in the words of the Son of God to his grumbling disciples... 'What then if you should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before' (John 6:61-61 NASB). It is pre-incarnate conditions, although such in prospect according to divine counsels" (Ronald F. Hogan, The Gory of God, p. 72).

IS THIS DOCTRINE ONENESS? Some may be wondering if this concept of "God in Christ" in both Testaments is in conformity with Biblical Oneness. Nothing could be more Oneness, and as I will shortly prove, this message was an original and authentic part of early Oneness Exegesis. If God the Father, as a divine Spirit, can be manifested in the body of Christ in the New Testament, and it be Oneness, then why can't the same God be similarly manifested in the body of Christ in the Old Testament? If God in Christ is Oneness in the New Testament, why is it not in the Old Testament? The only difference involves the bodies in which he dwelt. In the Old Testament it was a celestial body, known as the Word of God. In the New Testament it is a human body, known as the Son of God. It is the same God, the same Christ, and the same indwelling. Only the form of Christ's body has changed, from the "form of God" to the "form of man." God in Christ in the Old Testament is shown to be Redeemer, Saviour, Captain, and Provider. The Angel of God embodies God's Presence or divine nature, and bears God's name, and administers God's Spirit. He who sees the Angel of God sees God. God in Christ in the New Testament is also revealed as Redeemer, Saviour, Captain and Provider. The Son of God likewise embodies God's presence or divine nature, and He too bears the Father's name and administers God's Spirit. He who sees the Son of God, sees God also. Neither in the Old or New Testament are we speaking of "two distinct persons." The only Person is Christ, God's Image. He has always been the Person of God. God Himself is not a Person, divine or otherwise. He is never called a "person" in Scripture. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). So what we have is one invisible Spirit dwelling and manifesting Himself in One visible Image, known as the Angel of God in one dispensation and the Son of God in another. Pray tell, where are there two persons anywhere? THE "VOICE OF THE LORD," WHO WALKED WITH ADAM AND EVE IN THE GARDEN, WAS ACTUALLY THE ANGEL OF GOD, IN WHOM GOD WAS MANIFEST; HE WAS GOD'S OLD TESTAMENT "FORM" OR "BODY".

LET THE FOUNDERS SPEAK Many of the early pioneers of Oneness truth recognized and taught the concept of God in Christ in the Old Testament. It was part and parcel of the message. It did not receive as much attention as the New Testament "God in Christ" truth due to the fact that the battle lines with Trinitarians were primarily drawn on New Testament territory. Nevertheless they recognized the important truths concerning the Jehovah Angel as the Word of God. The neglect of this aspect of Oneness has resulted in much needless controversy with Trinitarians, where time might have been more profitably spent. Oneness exponents of today need to realize, as their forbearers did, that the "idealistic Son doctrine" will never adequately answer all the texts presented to us on the pre-existent Christ by our opponents. The entire oneness message will never come into complete harmony without this segment of the Truth being fully integrated into our theology.

Let us now examine the record of our early writers.

G.T. HAYWOOD Bishop Haywood, first Bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, was a theologian, journalist, composer and artist. A genius by the definition of the term. His theological works on Oneness were among the first to appear. Concerning the Angel of Jehovah as the Word, he wrote: "Elohim is God, the living God, the power of creation (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Rev. 3:4-11). He first assumes a creature form, though spiritual in nature (Gen. 12:7, 32:24-30, Is. 6:1, 5); afterwards, the human form for the purpose of redeeming mankind. (John 1:14, Heb. 2:9, 14, 16, 17; Phil. 2:7, Rom. 8:3). That Elohim, in his creature form spiritually, who appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets is the same who appeared in a human form 1,900 years ago to Israel can be clearly seen by reading the following Scriptures: Gen. 17:13, Ex. 6:23, with John 8:56-58, Is. 6:1, 2, 5, 9, 10 with John 12: 9-40, 41, 44, 45." (G.T. Haywood, Divine Names and Titles of Jehovah, p. 7-8). "When Jacob wrestled with the Angel he sought to obtain the secret name, but was prohibited... The children of Israel were led by the Angel of the Lord and Jehovah said, 'Beware of him...for my name is in him' (Ex. 23:21). To Manoah, the Jehovah Angel replied, 'Why asketh thou after my name, seeing it is secret (margin, Wonderful)?' (Judges 13:18). The Prophet Isaiah declared that his name shall be called 'Wonderful' (Is. 9:6). From these scriptures it can be clearly seen the Jehovah had a name to be revealed which was above all his names! There is not a shadow of a doubt but that the angel that appeared to the Virgin of Nazareth was the Jehovah Angel of old who bore that "Wonderful' name. It was there that he had finished his journey over the hills of time and deposited that secret name in the bosom of her who was 'highly favoured of God.’.. The Word was God from the beginning (John 1:1-4) and when the Word became flesh, it was given a name that 'is above every name,' for he there and then 'magnified his Word' above all His name. His name shall be called Jesus!" (Haywood, p. 13-14).

JOHN PATERSON In 1920 John Paterson wrote his classic Oneness Treatise entitled "Revelation of Jesus Christ." This was used as a textbook in early Oneness circles and was printed by both G.T. Haywood and A.D. Urshan. It has been reprinted by Word Aflame Press under the Title "God in Christ Jesus. Bro. Paterson, whom I knew, presented me with a personally autographed copy of his book when he first reprinted it. I quote now from this Oneness pioneer's masterful work which contains over 800 scripture references: "The visible being who appeared to Jacob and declared himself to be God, and who was recognized by Jacob as God, is variously described in the Bible as 'the Angel of Jehovah' (over 50 references), 'the Angel of the Covenant' (Mal. 3:1, 1 Cor 10:9), and 'the Angel who can refuse to pardon iniquity, because the name of Jehovah is in Him' (Ex. 23:21, Psalm 2:12). Surely no one will deny the Power to forgive, or the right to refuse pardon, belongs solely to God. Who is this Angel if he is not the pre-existent Christ? ...Likewise, the fact that Christ was not 'just another angel' did not prevent Him from being the Angel of God's Presence and the Angel of the covenant who 'suddenly came to His Temple' (as foretold in Malachi 3:1 and fulfilled in John 2:13-16)" (John Paterson, God in Christ Jesus, p. 48-49).John Paterson's book "The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus' Name" has been in circulation over 50 years. It is considered the most popular and widely decimated Oneness book of all time. On page 13 we read: "God gives a fearful warning against trifling with His name in the Person of His Son when he says concerning the Angel of the Covenant, 'Beware of Him. And obey His voice, provoke Him not' Why? 'for my name is in Him' (Ex. 23:21). Every Bible student knows that He was the Lord Jesus Christ" (John Paterson, The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus Name, p. 13-14).

FRANK J. EWART Bro. Ewart was the first to see the light on Water Baptism in Jesus' Name as the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19. Back in 1913 he began baptizing in Jesus' name those first Oneness believers. He was also an articulate author. Concerning the Pre-existent Christ, he writes: "There is not a single scripture that asserts Jesus existed eternally as a Son. He is called 'the Word,' 'God's Wisdom,' 'Back in the Beginning,' but never God's Son. See John 1:1, Prov. 8:22-31... He asserts that His existence was inseparable from the One True God. He asserted that back in the beginning he was in 'the bosom of the Father.' It is written in Zechariah that he was 'God's Fellow.' Micah said the babe of Bethlehem was 'from everlasting.' Isaiah says He was 'the Everlasting Father'..." (Frank Ewart, Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 37).Bro. Ewart recognized the "Word" or "God's Fellow" to be the embodiment of the invisible Father back in "the beginning" and who would later become the "Babe of Bethlehem."

C.H. YADONC.H. Yadon, a well-revered Oneness Pioneer, had reprinted a remarkable book entitled "Jehovah-Jesus." This book was originally written by one R.D. Weeks. For years this book was the principal Godhead work circulated by the United Pentecostal Church. Often quoted out of context, and distorted grossly by enemies of Oneness, the book fell into disfavour, and has not been reprinted in years. However it contained a very thorough exposition of the Angel of Jehovah as the Pre-Existent Christ and the embodiment of the Father. He wrote: "It was the same divine 'Angel,' the 'God of Israel,' that was seen by Moses and the elders of Israel on Mount Sinai, and who spoke to them there. We are told that 'no man hath seen God at any time,' that is, God as a Spirit. What they saw must have been the Angel Jehovah, the same who 'spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto a friend' -- The Lord, (Jehovah) who spoke to Moses not in a vision, nor in a dream, but mouth to mouth, even apparently, whose 'similitude' he beheld. He was a created being, because 'seen' and talked with 'mouth to mouth' and; face-to-face' yet also Jehovah, God Himself. He was the Spiritual Rock, the 'angel' that was with the Israelites in the wilderness, which 'Rock was Christ'" (C.H. Yadon, Jehovah-Jesus, p. 51).

THEODORE FITCH In the early 1930's the Lord Jesus Christ Himself appeared to Theodore Fitch, who was a Trinitarian, and revealed the Oneness of the Godhead to him. Rev. Fitch immediately set about writing his book "The Deity of Jesus." It is still the most comprehensive work ever published on the Oneness. Fitch wrote many other books on the Oneness, which enjoyed wide circulation among believers. I quote from "The Deity of Jesus" page 4: "The 'Angel of the Lord' represented the Great Eternal Spirit that filled the Universe. The Spirit of God was present everywhere. The Angel 'Person' of God was God in One Place. Please notice that every time the Angel of the Lord appeared or spoke to anyone it was God Himself 'in person'... Before the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, the Lord God existed in two definite ways. God was manifested as an Angelic Spirit 'Person' and as an omnipresent Spirit, that is present everywhere all the time. His 'Person' was in the form of a man, and His eternal Spirit was without form, body or parts" (Theodore Fitch, The Deity of Jesus, Pentecostal Publishing House, Hazelwood, MO n.d., p. 4). "Before the incarnation, the fullness of God dwell in a Spirit body which was in the form of a man. This beautiful angel body was made flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary. This made the God-Angel a God-man.. If the Word or 'Person' of God was made flesh, then the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father.. The Word that was God, was 'made over' into a flesh man (John 1:14). When God the Word was made flesh, he became a Son, but still remained God, he still remained the same Person... The angel Person of the Lord from Heaven is now called the Son of God" (Fitch, p. 22,23).

OSCAR VOUGA Bro. Vouga's popular little book "Our Gospel Message" has this to say concerning the Son of God and his Pre-existence as the Word of God on p. 28: "The Son of God was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. (Matt. 1:18-25) - The son of David of the tribe of Judah. 'In the beginning (He) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...all things were made by Him; and without him was not anything made that was made.' John 1:1-3. Her was in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). He was the Body of Heaven that Moses and Aaron, with the elders of Israel, saw. (Ex. 24:10). It was He who talked with Abraham (Gen. 17:1), wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32:24-30), was and is the creator of all things. '...all things were created by Him and for Him' Col. 1:16 "'But made himself of no reputation (Nay, he stripped Himself of glory - Weymouth), and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,' Phil. 2:7. He left the glory of the Father, that is stripped Himself of divine glory, but not of deity, and was made flesh... He is now glorified with the Father with the glory He had before the world was (John 17:5). (Oscar Vouga, Our Gospel Message, p. 28).The book carries an endorsement from Howard A. Goss, founding father of both the Assemblies of God and the United Pentecostal Church. Bro. Vouga's exposition of the Godhead on pages 27 to 29 of his book is in my opinion one of the very best ever written.

GORDON MAGEE “Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus" is the famous little book by the well-known Apostle to Ireland, Gordon Magee. On page 7 of the original edition published by the author (It has been changed in the revised edition published by Word Aflame Press), we read, "'Who being in the form of God, though it not robbery to be equal with God.' Or in other words, before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the divine visible equation of the invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, 'He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.' this being, who prior to His physical birth, was in the very form of God -- the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God -- This Being, God, at His Incarnation took upon himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at his incarnation, but did not cease to be God..." (Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus, n.d., p. 7).

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE WORD We have seen that the Son of God, the man Christ Jesus, pre-existed as the Word (Logos) or Angel of the Lord. We have also seen that this Word or Angel was God's visible Image and Mediator in the Old Testament. He was God's personal Form. The invisible divine Spirit was "incarnate" in this Angel of God, just as he would later be in the Son of God. This explains how the Word was "with God" and yet "was God" and how God created all things "by Christ Jesus." The question now before us concerns the origin of this Word or Angel. Was he "created" or "eternal" or "begotten?"

TRINITARIAN THEORY The origin of the Logos is shrouded in mystery. We know the Word was "in the beginning" (John 1:1) and existed before "the foundation of the world" (John 17:24). This much we know. Trinitarians feel the Logos was "eternal." They base their reasoning on such texts as Micah 5:2 which speaks of his "goings forth" which "have been of eternity." Also Proverbs 8:23 "I was set up from everlasting."

ONENESS THEORY Others, including Oneness theologians, feel the Logos had a definite origin. They point to Christ's statement in Rev. 3:14, where he referred to Himself as "The Beginning of the Creation of God." They view this as a reference to his Pre-existence as the Logos. The passage in Colossians 1:15-19 is also used to prove the argument. Christ is called the "image of the invisible God" in verse 15. This, as we have seen, is the Word or Angel of the Lord. The same verse also calls Him "the Firstborn of every creature." This, like the title in Rev. 3:14, is the instrument of creation "for by him were all things created" (v. 16). And this was possible only because the Father was dwelling in Him as His divine nature: "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell." (v. 19). This "fullness" is the Godhead, "for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Heb 1:6 is also taken as a reference to his primeval origin. This "first begotten" however receives worship, "let all the Angels of God worship him." Thus, the divine nature of God is resident or incarnate in the First Begotten, making him also God and worthy of worship.

FIRST BORN AND FIRST BEGOTTEN Christ as the Word or Jehovah Angel is said to be the "first born" and "first begotten." Based on what we know these expressions could never be taken literally, for that would require a "divine mother" pre-existing in heaven; "begotten" and "born" are earthly terms, defined by human reproduction. Christ's birth at Bethlehem was a literal begetting because he had a "real" mother and was actually "born." God was the real Father of that child, howbeit through a miraculous birth. So Col. 1:15 and Heb. 1:6 must be taken as highly figurative language which refers to a process about which we have no real understanding or capacity to understand.

EARLY FATHERS It is apparent from reading the creeds and the writings of the early church Fathers that they believed in the origin of the Logos in Pre-Creation times. The idea of an "eternal generation" always going on, and a "birth always taking place" but never culminating were later "twists" woven around the original and unambiguous statements. We shall examine some.

THE APOSTLES CREED Considered the oldest, though not written by the Apostles. It contains no reference to the Pre-existent Logos, or His being "begotten." It also makes no reference to the deity of Christ. Aryans, Trinitarians, and Sabellianists, could all easily subscribe to this creed. It is "controversy free." No wonder its popularity has endured!

THE NICENE CREED This creed refers to the Son's pre-existence and origin as Logos in these words: "Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God and very God, begotten, not made." In this creed we also read of the Son being of one substance with the Father. However, he is still "begotten before all worlds."

ATHANASIAN CREED This, the lengthiest of all creeds, speaks of Christ as "begotten before the worlds," but "of the substance of the Father." He is still "begotten before all worlds," but the idea is that he was generated from the Father's "substance."

CHALCEDONIAN CREED “Begotten of the Father before the Ages" is the phrase used in this creed. He had an origin before the ages begin to roll. The Virgin Birth is also defined as a second "begetting" in these words: "But yet as regards his manhood, begotten for us men and for our salvation, of the Virgin May, the God-bearer (Or Mother of God-"theotokos" in Greek)."

JUSTIN MARTYR “Now the Word of God is His Son, as I said before. he is also called 'Angel' and 'Apostle'. For as Angel he announces what it is necessary to know...This can be made clear from the writings of Moses, in which this is to be found: 'and the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire out of the bush and said, I am He who is God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob...' But these words were altered to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Apostle, who was first the Word, and appeared now in the form of fire, now in the image of the bodiless creatures (angels). Now, however, having become man by the will of God for the sake of the human race...The Father of the universe has a Son, who being the Word and first begotten of God is also divine. Formerly he appeared in the form of fire and the image of a bodiless being to Moses and the other prophets. But now in the time of your dominion he was, as I have said, made man of a virgin according to the will of the Father." (Early Christian Fathers, Cyril C. Richardson, editor, p. 284-285).

ATHENAGORA "Rather did the Son come forth from the Father to give form and actuality to all material things... The Prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when he says: "The Lord created me as the first of his ways, for his works'" (Richardson, p. 309)This is sufficient to show that the idea of the Word being "formed," "begotten," "created," or "coming forth," from God in a time described as "before all worlds," "before the ages," "in the beginning," was not an unfamiliar or novel concept in the early church. This Word was also identified with the Angel of God in the Old Testament times.

A MODERN DAY WITNESS TO THE LOGOS DOCTRINEA very interesting discussion concerning the Word appears in Dr. E.W. Bullinger's previously cited "Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament." The doctrine Dr. Bullinger brings forth, although he is an ardent Trinitarian, is almost word-for-word the Oneness position on Christ as the Word, or Angel of God. Here is what he says: "The Godhead is 'Spirit' (john 4:24) and as Spirit has no likeness to matter, God Himself took some creature form, (not human) before He created anything, in order that creation might have a mediator, or a means of communion with Deity. Hence, Christ is said to have been, 'In the Beginning' (John 1:1); 'before all things' (Co. 1:17); 'The Firstborn of every Creature' (Col. 1:15); 'The Beginning of the Creation of God' (Rev. 3:14); and hence, "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9). "Elohim, therefore, is the Logos or Word, who took creature hood, to create, (as afterwards took humanity, to redeem). As such He is the Father's 'Servant,' 'Angel,' or 'Messenger.' (Elohim denotes His being set apart to the office with an oath; Messiah or Christ, His anointing to the work of redemption; Angel or Messenger, referring to his actual dispatch; Servant, with reference to the service actually to be done). He appeared to Adam and the Patriarchs, (Gen. 17, 17, 18, 21, 22, 32; Ex. 3, 6; Joshua 5:13-15 with Ex. 23:23; Judges 13, etc., etc.) This view only makes permanent that which most commentators assume as being only temporary. "His mission in connection with creation was to manifest Deity to His creatures, (Prov. 8:22-31). His work was begun with Adam (made in His likeness and image), but the Fall interrupted the mission, and it was necessarily suspended. Then 'the Word was made flesh' (John 1:14) in order that He might redeem creation from the curse. Made flesh in order that He might suffer and die (See Heb. 10:5, Ps 40:6; Is. 42:40, Philip. 2:7)." (Bullinger, p. 896-897). Oneness theologians could find no argument with this marvelous discussion from the pen of a well-known and well-respected Trinitarian Bible expositor and author.

CHRIST'S OWN WORDS Christ Himself may have been speaking of his beginning as Word of Jehovah Angel in a number of statements He made. These statements have a cryptic and mystifying ring to them and may be capable of deeper interpretation than what we have accorded them. "Jesus said unto them, If God were you Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God..." (John 8:42).When did Jesus "proceed forth" from God? Could it have been when He emerged from the Father as the Word, or God's Image, in the dateless past? We know when He "proceeded forth" from Mary as the Son of God, for the Scriptures say: "God sent forth His Son made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4).But where does the Bible say "He proceeded forth" as the Word of God? Perhaps John 8:42 provides the Bible answer. In one of his last discussions with the disciples Christ says: "For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God" (John 16:27).What is this "coming out from God" that Jesus is speaking of? Obviously it is the same as his "proceeding forth" and is a reference to the time when He, as the Word, first made his appearance "before all ages," even "before the worlds were." For He was God's visible form or Temple before anything was created. The first thing God fashioned was a body for Himself; this was the "beginning of the Creation of God" and the "first born of all creation." In this body God could dwell and "incarnate" Himself and thus have a Mediator for all his subsequent creation. In his final prayer Christ says: "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee..." (John 17:8)."Came out" as the "First begotten," the "Image of the invisible God," is what he meant! He "came out" from Mary as the "form of man" in 4 B.C. But He came "out from God" as the "form of God" back "before all worlds." Mary produced the Human body in which the divine Spirit dwelt, but in the dateless past God produced the celestial body (Ex. 24:10) in which he dwelt, before He was "made flesh" (John 1:14).

IS THE WORD IN ANY SENSE ETERNAL? The Word of God, as God's creature form (Bullinger, p. 896) came forth from the omnipotent Spirit in the dateless past before the: “Foundation of the world." The emergence of the Angel of Jehovah as God's "celestial body" and "mediator" at this remote time is scripturally assured for us (Micah 5:2, Prov. 8:23; John 17:24). But is there any sense in which it could be said that the Word was eternal? Yes, in the sense of having existed in God's mind or foreknowledge as an unexpressed thought, destined to take substantial form in time. The Word did not exist eternally as a "distinct" divine Second Person in the Godhead. There was no "persons" at all, just Spirit, until the Jehovah Angel was brought forth as God's Person. And it was in this one and only Person of the Word that God took up residence and deposited his divine nature. The Catholic Encyclopedia, of all books, has this to say on the subject: "They knew that St. John spoke of the Second Person of the Trinity as the 'Word of God' existing from all eternity as an unexpressed word. in the mind of a Thinker. Only when God decided to create, and especially when he sent his word upon the earth in the form of the man Christ, did the inner word come forth; it was now the spoken Word through whom all things were made and who was made flesh and dwelt among us" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI,. p70).Except for the preposterous notion that an "unexpressed word in the mind of a thinker" can be considered a "second Person" in the Trinity, the main thrust here is correct. The Word existed eternally as an unexpressed concept in God's mind. Then the Word took actual existence when God "brought forth" His Visible Form, the Jehovah-Angel, called also the "Word," or the "Body of Heaven." The Deity dwelt in this Form as His visible Temple; this is the Word that was "in the Beginning" and was eventually "made flesh." This is the scriptural doctrine concerning the Pre-Existence of Christ. HE WHO WALKED AMONG US IN THE "DAYS OF HIS FLESH" AS THE SON OF GOD, HAD PREVIOUSLY MANIFESTED HIMSELF TO THE PATRIARCHS AS THE WORD OF GOD.



Pages 141 through 151

CHAPTER XVII

IMPORTANCE OF BAPTISM

DO THE DETAILS OF BAPTISM MATTER AS LONG AS ONE IS "SINCERE"?

WHAT ARE THE "WATER TESTS" GOD'S PEOPLE HAVE FACED THROUGHOUT HISTORY?

IS BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME ONE OF THEM?



THE HEART OF ONENESS

WATER TESTS

HISTORY OF THE REVELATION OF BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME

EFFICACY OF BAPTISM

WORDS OF CHRIST

WHAT COULD BE PLAINER?

GOOD-BYE TO AUGUSTINE AND FRIENDS

TERTULLIAN

JUSTIN MARTYR

AUGUSTINE

AQUINAS

SCHOLARS AND CREEDS

BAPTISM FOR (EIS) REMISSION OF SINS

BORN OF WATER -- JOHN 3:5

HOW DID NICODEMUS UNDERSTAND IT?

BAPTISM SAVES -- 1 PETER 3:21

"WASH AWAY THY SINS" ACTS 22:16

BATH OF REGENERATION

PUT ON CHRIST IN BAPTISM

BAPTIZED INTO NEWNESS OF LIFE

CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART

WHAT MORE IS NEEDED?

NEO-TRINITARIAN INDECISION

MODERN DAY SUBSTITUTES

SALVATION AND "WHAT ONE DOES"



THE HEART OF ONENESS Carl Brumback in his book "God in Three Persons" remarked that the very heart of the Oneness Movement is in its doctrine of Baptism in Jesus' Name. In a sense this is true. Baptism in Jesus' name was the first truth recovered after the Latter Rain outpouring of 1900, and in the words of E.N. Bell "it was the vehicle God used to roll up to our astonished eyes a greater vision of Jesus than we had ever seen before." Baptism in Jesus' Name was the first step in a doctrinal chain reaction that led to the revelation of the Truth of Oneness and the Biblical New Birth. Therefore, it is only logical that this doctrine would receive the fiercest assaults from our enemies, and in the case of Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians, the most bizarre and desperate mechanizations ever brought forth against a Truth; arguments so desperate that many Trinitarians refuse to endorse them. It is in his theories concerning Baptism in Jesus' Name that Dr. Boyd has ventured the farthest; pressing the very limits of blasphemy, he drives his leaky vessel ever onward through the ocean of confusion and apostasy.

WATER TESTS God has always tested and proved his people through the means of water. When the Bible opens there is water (Genesis 1:2). No mention is made of its creation, though it surely was created. The Spirit is also there, brooding over the waters. Right from the start of the Biblical record there is a combination of water and Spirit that results in creation. Thousands of years later the Master tells Nicodemus that another combination of water and Spirit would result in a "new creation." "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " (John 3:5).God proved Noah with an earth-wide water test, "Wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water" (1 Peter 3:20).God tested the children of Israel at the Red Sea, in which, "they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2).Another water and Spirit event. Also, in Gideon's day, God told Gideon "The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there" (Judges 7:4).Out of 10,000 only 300 passed the water test. In the New Testament John the Baptist brought a water test to the people in preparation to receiving Christ, and the Pharisees failed it by rejecting... "the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him" (Luke 7:30).On the day of Pentecost, Peter put the water test to the assembled multitude, men responsible for the crucifixion. When they, pricked in their hearts, desired to know what to do to be saved, Peter told them: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38). "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41).

HISTORY OF THE REVELATION OF BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME In the year 1913 a worldwide camp meeting of "Spirit baptized" Pentecostal believers was held in Arroyo Seco, California. A name, which means "Dry Gully" in Spanish. How significant - "yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink" (2 Kings 3:17). God had alerted the saints beforehand through the Spirit, that he would "Do a New Thing" and proceed to do a "marvelous work among the people, even a marvelous work and a wonder" (Is. 29:14). Therefore, an air of expectancy prevailed over the Camp Meeting. It came quietly at first. A Bro. McAllister from Canada, while preaching a sermon on water baptism, remarked that if they were to follow Apostolic precept they would baptize their candidates once by immersion in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. This sent spiritual waves throughout the assembled congregation. Shortly after that, a Bro. Sheppe, an immigrant from Danzig, Germany, received a tremendous revelation concerning the Name of Jesus and dutifully woke his fellow campers up in the midnight hour to share it. A great searching of the scripture began concerning the subject of the Name of Jesus Christ. Bro. Frank Ewart was the first to see the relationship between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. Guided by the Spirit of God he clearly saw, by placing all the scriptures together, that the reason Peter commanded baptism in Jesus' Name at Pentecost was due to the fact that the name "Jesus" is the one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit referred to by our Lord in Matthew 28:19. He immediately baptized Glenn Cook who in turn baptized him and a spiritual fire of truth was lit that now encircles the globe. From this small beginning an international movement for the restoration of true New Testament Apostolic religion exists earth wide in the Oneness Pentecostal Revival. A movement that Dr. Boyd claims he was once part of for a number of years: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" 1 John 2:19.Now he feels he must work diligently to turn this thing back. This will prove a most difficult and dangerous task for him, "for whosoever shall fall on this rock shall be broke: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matt 21:44).

EFFICACY OF BAPTISM The opening volley of every attack on water baptism in Jesus' Name is always an attempt to minimize the importance of baptism in general. For our opponents know that if people are taught that baptism is not "all that important," certainly not "essential for salvation," then they will not feel so compelled to give diligent search as to the proper mode or formula. And a diligent search in scripture and history is the last thing our detractors want! For they know it is fatal to their position. Dr. Boyd is no different in this respect, for he writes: "This is not, however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly contingent upon baptism. The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a person is itself enough to prove this..." (Boyd, p. 136).

WORDS OF CHRIST So salvation was never "seen as being directly contingent upon baptism." Conspicuous by its absence in Dr. Boyd's discussion are the extremely "contingent" words of Christ in Mark 16:16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. "Seems like quite a direct contingency to me -- belief plus baptism yields salvation.

WHAT COULD BE PLAINER? Dr. Boyd's omission of this passage may be due to the fact that he does not consider this portion of Mark as part of the Word of God, a view held in common with Jehovah's Witnesses, who print it reluctantly in the margin of their New World Translation. This is an old dodge often employed -- "It's not in the original Greek." But it is, and the weight of scholarship now leans ever increasingly in its favour. Phillip Schaff's Companion to Greek New Testament, page 190 proves the passage is included in 500 ancient manuscripts! Schaff says: "The section is found in most of the uncial and in all the cursive manuscripts and on most of the ancient versions, in all existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries as far as examined; and Irenaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts quotes vs. 19 as part of the Gospel of Mark."

GOOD-BYE TO AUGUSTINE AND FRIENDS It is amazing to see how quickly Dr. Boyd has parted company with the "great saints of the church" including Augustine, Aquinas, and the Cappodocian Fathers. For they all believed strongly and fervently in "baptism for remission of sins." They were baptismal regenerationists to a man! Dr. Boyd is quite content to soak up their wisdom in regards to the Trinity (and pass it on second hand to us), but when it comes to their equally dogmatic position on water baptism for remission of sins, they are no longer wise nor great. Surely if these fathers were so "divinely illuminated" as to discover such teachings as the Perichoresis doctrine, they could not have missed something so elemental as baptism. Why doesn't he quote them now on this position? He doesn't dare, because he is again impaled on the horns of a dilemma. If he quotes them on baptismal regeneration he will have to admit that it is either a valid doctrine or that they were deceived and unenlightened! Neither of which would be pleasant for him. The only alternative is to let "sleeping dogs lie." But I insist on waking them and hearing them bark!

TERTULLIAN "So in the case of baptism... a man is brought down into the water and washed to the accompaniment of a few words, and comes up again little or no cleaner, therefore, it is regarded as incredible (to unbelievers - ed.) that he should obtain -- eternal life." (Gore, Reconstruction of Belief, p. 645).

JUSTIN MARTYR "No one is allowed to partake of it (the Eucharist) unless he believes that what we teach is true, and has been washed in the laver for the remission of sins and for regeneration." (Gore, p. 918).

AUGUSTINE Baptism confers "supernatural grace upon those who receive" and "expunges the stain of original sin from them" (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 138). AQUINAS Baptism is a "means of grace," "admits to membership in the visible church," and "sin, both original and actual is forgiven." (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 139). The list could go on indefinitely, and Dr. Boyd well knows it. The unanimous testimony of every early Church document (Apostolic Fathers, Ante-Nicene, Post-Nicene), reveals that Baptism is for the remission of sins. All the early Church fathers, and "great saints" of the church all proclaim with one united voice the same doctrine -- baptism for remission of sins. The same men, and the same voices, Dr. Boyd is so happy to refer us to on the Question of the Trinity; of them he says on page 161: "And each of these figures understood himself to be passing on the Faith that was had been handed down by the Apostles from the beginning" (Boyd, p 161).And that includes Baptismal Regeneration!

SCHOLARS AND CREEDS All scholarship is agreed on this point: "On the basis of these and similar declarations by the writers of the New Testament it may be concluded that in the Christian Community of the 1st Century baptism occupied a place of great importance and was regarded as essential to the New Birth and to membership in the Kingdom of God" (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 138). And what of the Creeds? These creeds, that are such doctrinal fortresses for Trinitarian Belief, also shelter within their walls the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration! On pages 172 and 173, Dr. Boyd takes great pains to point out the correct interpretation of what the "ancient confessions" really meant in regards to the Trinity, lest we become guilty of a "misapplication of the creedal language." But he is awfully silent on how to apply the "creedal language" of these "ancient confessions" where they announce such "orthodox teachings" as "we acknowledge one baptism unto the remission of sins" -- Nicene Creed. In the first half of the Nicene Creed (which speaks of the Trinity) is true and applicable, why such "deafening silence" on the second half, which puts forth baptism for remission of sins? Its sad but true; Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians must bid a reluctant farewell to "church Fathers," "church traditions," "Cappodocians," "Augustine," and "Aquinas." For they all held unequivocally to baptism for remission of sins. Allies on the Trinity; enemies of baptism. How much reliance can one place on that divided camp! BAPTISM FOR (EIS) REMISSION OF SINS The first Gospel sermon preached in the newly opened church age was delivered by the Apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost and climaxed with these immortal words: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38).This has always been to mean just what it says -- baptism is the means of obtaining remission of sins. All the early writings of the Church, Fathers and Apologists, so understood it. Church History of 1500 years knew of no other meaning. The Greek Church, in whose language the verse was written, knows of no other meaning. Dr. Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism knew of no other meaning. But Neo-Trinitarian "easy-believism" advocates now of another meaning! "The preposition 'eis' in Greek can simply mean 'with a view towards,' 'in connection with,' or 'in the light of.' If this interpretation is meant, Peter is in this passage simply saying that baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins." (Boyd, p. 136).In other words this is the old worn out argument, "spruced up" somewhat, that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 really means "because of." Hence according to this theory we are baptized "because of" the remission of sins, which we already received when we "signed a decision card," or "slipped up a finger" or "allowed" Jesus to come into our heart. This nonsensical interpretation has been answered repeatedly in the past. The preposition "eis" does not mean "because of" or "in the light of." It means "in order to obtain." Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, defines it: "a preposition governing the accusative case and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit, into, towards, for among." (Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed.).Arndt and Gingrich, unquestionable authorities agree with Thayer: "of place -- into, in, toward to" (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature). For the Acts 2:38 passage they have to say this: "to denote purpose, in order to ...for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven. “This certainly kills Dr. Boyd's innovative translation and lays it in it well-deserved grave. But if more proof is desired, it is available. In Matthew 26:28 Christ uses the exact same phrase, word for word, as found in Acts 2:38 - eis ophesin hamartion: "for the remission of sins." The context in this case is the Last Supper and the Lord is speaking of his blood. "This is my blood... which is shed for many for the remission of sins." There it is, "for the remission of sins" -- exactly the same as in Peter's sermon. Now did Christ mean his blood would be shed because the believers already had remission of sins, or did he mean that it would be shed for them to obtain remission of sins? Obviously to obtain remission of sins. Therefore, Peter's command in Acts 2:38, which is a perfect parallel to Matthew 26:28, means exactly the same -- baptism "in order to obtain" remission of sins. And with this conclusion agree all major Greek scholars, all "apostolic Fathers," all "the great saints of the Church," all reputable historians of Early Christianity, The Greek Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, etc.; the same sources, by the way, that are appealed to by Dr. Boyd and other Trinitarians, in support of the Doctrine of the Trinity. In his section on "Baptismal Regeneration" (pages 134-139), Dr. Boyd doesn't mention even one time "the church," "the fathers," scholars, theologians, church history, or orthodox tradition -- sources he is so fond of appealing to in his Godhead discussions. Why? He knows he's "changed hats" for a while and can't use them; for they oppose his doctrine of baptismal efficacy, with a vengeance!

BORN OF WATER -- JOHN 3:5Next the statement of Christ himself must be attacked in order to depose Baptism from its scriptural essentiality. Those who relegate baptism to a mere "outward sign of an inward work" are always nervous around John 3:5 -- almost never quoting it when mentioning the New Birth. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. “This is so obviously a reference to baptism of water and Spirit that our opponents become almost frantic in their efforts to escape its impact. Their fertile imaginations go into overdrive! Through the years I have heard that "water" refers to the birth fluid surrounding the fetus, or the Word of God, or the preaching of the Word, or waters of salvation, or Christ's "belly," -- anything but baptism in water! Jesus in John 3 talks about births involving Spirit, water, and flesh. All agree flesh is literal, all agree Spirit is literal, but when we come to water it suddenly becomes symbolic in some people's minds. In almost any Bible the marginal references will direct you to Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Titus 3:5; all water baptismal references. Again, all the early church fathers and apologists, ante and post Nicene writers, interpreted it to mean water baptism. There is no other viewpoint in the early church. The Cappodocians, Augustine, and Aquinas would be quick to explain it as baptism and would be "astonished beyond measure" at any other interpretation, and would brand as a heretic anyone who taught otherwise! But, of course, Dr. Boyd must again bid them Adieu, for he has yet another interpretation: "Turning to John 3:5 there is simply no decisive reason to think Jesus is referring to baptism when he says that one must be 'born of water'" (Boyd, p. 138).What is the reason? Why, Nicodemus would not have understood, that's why! "Its certainly difficult to suppose that Nicodemus would have understood 'water' as referring to the not-yet-existent ritual of Christian baptism" (Boyd, p. 138).

HOW DID NICODEMUS UNDERSTAND IT? The implication is that Nicodemus had no experience with the practice of baptism, and hence would never have made the connection between "born of water" and "baptized in water." Therefore Christ certainly would not have brought up something, still future, that Nicodemus couldn't possibly comprehend. This is absolutely untrue. John the Baptist had just finished a mass water baptismal campaign in preparation for the Messiah's arrival (Luke 3:3) in which a "multitude" of Jews "Came forth to be baptized of him" (Luke 3:7), and "went out to Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matt 3:5-6). In addition, Nicodemus would have been very familiar with the practice of baptizing in water all proselytes to the Jewish faith: "Baptism... was already in the time of our Lord (with circumcision and sacrifice) the rite for the incorporation of the Gentile proselytes into the community of Israel. The whole ceremony was their 'New Birth' as Israelites" (Gore, 672).Gore also quotes the distinguished Hebrew scholar Eldrsheim who adds: "as he (the proselyte) stepped out of these waters he was considered 'born anew' -- in the language of the Rabbis as if he were a 'little child just born'" (Gore, p. 672).In the light of all this it would seem incredible if Nicodemus didn't associate our Lord's phrase with water baptism. It would be the first thing to come to his mind! And what does Dr. Boyd offer as an alternative interpretation to "born of water" as a reference to water baptism? Ever the innovator, he says: "Hence it seems most likely that 'water' is being used as a metaphorical synonym for 'Spirit' in verse 5" (Boyd, p. 138).This leads to the truly bizarre conclusion that what Jesus actually said was: "Unless a man be born of the Spirit and of the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God!" And of course, "Nicodemus would have readily picked up on this." (Boyd, p. 139). And so have we!

BAPTISM SAVES -- 1 PETER 3:21The passage in 1 Peter 3:21 is next on the "hit" list: "The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "The connection between water baptism and the salvation it produces is so strongly linked here ("contingent" if you please) that "they who labour, labour in vain" to refute it. But Dr. Boyd says it means the "opposite" (p. 137), in other words it proves Baptism does not save! To turn back this Niagara of proof he resorts to two different maneuvers. First he mentions that Peter, "is here talking symbolically" and this is "clear not only from the fact that he explicitly says he is talking symbolically, but also from the fact that he goes on to clarify that he is not talking about any literal washing or 'removal of dirt from the body...'" (Boyd, p. 138). That there is symbolism is true; but it is not the symbolism Dr. Boyd would have you believe. It is the flood of Noah that symbolizes baptism. The flood is the symbol, not baptism! His beloved NIV translation brings it our clearly: "In it (the ark -- ed.) only a few people, eight souls in all were saved through water, and this water (the Flood -- ed.) symbolizes baptism that now saves you also..." (I Peter 3:21 NIV).The flood of Noah is the type, Baptism is the Anti-type or the reality. In the next clause Peter is quick to point out what gives baptism its saving efficacy, "the answer of a good conscience toward God." The literal water, H20, cannot, by itself, cleanse any sin! "The putting away of the filth of the flesh" or in other words the contact of water upon the skin, cannot by itself save. If this were true then any sinner splashing around in the lake or river where a baptism was in progress would be automatically saved. The whole idea is absurd and Oneness people have never taught that. The teaching that a mere application of water with a religious formula cleanses from sin, regardless of the subjects upon whom it is performed, '"baptismal regeneration." This is Roman Catholic, but not Pentecostal teaching. It is for this reason that Catholic theology, dogmatically and "infallibly" teaches that if a baby, accident victim, comatose patient, lunatic, or whoever, has water applied to them, whether by sprinkling, pouring or spitting (!), in "the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," that person receives a cleansing from sin and an incorporation in the body of Christ, regardless! That is "baptismal regeneration" and is miles apart from the teaching of the UPCI or any other Oneness Organization, and Dr. Boyd knows it. We teach exactly what Peter expresses in this passage: that when the external rite of baptism is accompanied with "the answer of a good conscience," in other words, repentance and belief in Christ, then baptism will save or produce remission of sins. The "answer of a good conscience" is absolutely essential, otherwise all you are left with is an ineffectual bath of the "filth of the flesh". Dr. Boyd reverses the Bible completely when he says: "The reality that brings forth baptism is the act of repentance and the forgiveness of sins that produces the saint's ‘good conscience’" (Boyd, p.138).That's not what Peter said! A "good conscience," produced through repentance, "answers" God's command by being baptized in water; and this is what saves! Christ said the same thing in more succinct phraseology, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Once years ago when I was teaching school I got involved in a discussion with some students on salvation. I made the comment that baptism was necessary for salvation. The next day one of the girls remarked to me that her preacher had told her the Bible never says you have to be baptized to be saved. I quoted 1 Peter 3:21 where it states, "Baptism doth also now save us" and asked her to show it to her preacher. The following day she returned to class and I asked her what her preacher had to say. She replied: "He said not to talk to you anymore." That ended that! Almost every text of scripture that touches on the subject of baptism indicates that it is essential to salvation. Baptism, coupled with repentance and faith, is the means by which the erring sinner is pardoned of his transgression. This is the New Testament message and the original plan of salvation. Also that this is the only plan recognized by those who wrote immediately after the close of the New Testament canon; some of whom were contemporary with John and Paul. It is the ancient teaching of the primitive Church.

"WASH AWAY THY SINS" ACTS 22:16There are other scriptures, which bear this out. When Paul converted, he was instructed by Annanias in the following words: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16).Baptism in conjunction with repentance ("calling on the name of the Lord") leads to "washing away of sins." Paul never forgot or deviated, from the deposit of Truth he received that day in the house of Judas, on a street called Straight.

BATH OF REGENERATION We hear him telling Titus: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration ("bath of regeneration" -- Greek), and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5). He likened baptism to a "bath" or "washing" of regeneration, which was made possible "through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (v. 6). How much more evidence is needed to establish the saving efficacy of baptism?

PUT ON CHRIST IN BAPTISM Paul further teaches that we "put on Christ" by being "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27). Do you want to be in Christ? Be baptized into Him! Do you want to put on Christ? You put him on through water baptism. Therefore if you are not baptized "into Christ" you are still "outside" him. "Are you in the Church Triumphant? Are you in the Saviour's bride? Come and be baptized into the body and for evermore abide!"

BAPTIZED INTO NEWNESS OF LIFE Water baptism is a pre-requisite for "newness of life" and participation in the future resurrection from the dead at his coming: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted (i.e., baptism) together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection": (Rom. 6:3-5).

CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART Paul also compares baptism with the Old Testament rite of circumcision. In the Old Testament circumcision removed part of the literal flesh of the male and incorporated him into Israel. But in the church age, baptism (the "circumcision of Christ") removes or "puts off the body of sins," and simultaneously incorporates us into the church, the new "Israel of God." This is brought out clearly in Colossians 2:11-12, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. “The writer of Hebrews says the same thing. Our hearts are "sprinkled from an evil conscience" through repentance. Then our bodies are "washed" with pure water. Without this we cannot "draw near" to God "with a true heart," or have "full assurance of faith." (Heb. 10:23-24).

WHAT MORE IS NEEDED? If God wanted to say that baptism is absolutely essential for securing remission of sins and obtaining salvation, what more could he possibly have said? Every word conceivable, every metaphor imagined, every example observable is brought before us to drive home the point. Jesus said he that "believes and is baptized shall be saved,” unless a man is "born of water and Spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom." Peter said to be baptized "for the remission of sins," because "baptism doth also now save us." Paul was told to be baptized to "wash away his sins." He therefore called it a "washing of regeneration" which "saves us." Baptism is the only means to "put on Christ," to get "in Christ," and to "rise with Christ." It puts off the "body of sins," and puts us in the "body of Christ." Did the Bible leave anything out? I think not.

NEO-TRINITARIAN INDECISION Even Dr. Boyd is forced to admit that after such a scriptural bombardment that these passages "...do show that baptism was regarded as being an essential aspect of the ordinary saving experience of early believers. In the strongest possible terms, baptism is associated with one's being united with Christ (Rom. 6:4-5), with one's 'putting on Christ' (Gal. 3:27), with the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) and ...with one's becoming a member of the New Covenant Community (Col. 2:11-12). There is nothing to indicate that this act was perceived as being in any sense peripheral to the Gospel" (Boyd, p. 135).He uses the word "essential" which means "necessary; indispensable" (Webster's unified Dictionary). Therefore baptism was a necessary and indispensable "aspect of the ordinary saving experience," according to what Dr. Boyd states! Now having said that baptism is essential or "indispensable" to salvation, he spends the rest of the chapter dispensing with its essentiality! And this he begins to do on the following page: "This is not however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly contingent upon baptism. The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a person is itself to prove this" (Boyd, p. 136).Will he ever make up his mind? On page 135 baptism is an "essential aspect" of salvation, and "in the strongest possible terms, baptism is associated with the forgiveness of sins." By page 136, however, salvation is not "directly contingent upon baptism" and it is "faith, and faith alone that saves a person"! A lot can happen in one page! In the next nine pages follows the standard hackneyed arguments used to "explain away" the passages he previously designated as the "strongest possible terms!" In these type of books one must be very careful to mark your place in reading -- for one page can make a tremendous difference. I assume Neo-Trinitarians must be under a burden to please everyone in their camp on the baptismal issue, for "some like it hot, some like it cold, and some like it in the text nine pages old!" If you believe its essential read page 135. If you believe it’s not "contingent" and "faith alone" is all that's needed, then read page 136. While they're doing that, we'll be reading our Bible, all the pages!

MODERN DAY SUBSTITUTES How the modern day "evangelicals" with their waterless "dry cleaning" salvation wish they had the scriptural armory that we Oneness Pentecostals have. They would love to have just one text where the apostles coaxed someone to "accept Jesus as their very own personal Saviour"; but like old Mother Hubbard, they find that cupboard is bare! They search in vain where the Apostles told the people to "just slip up a hand" ("I see that hand, God bless you!"). But the Apostles were too busy telling people to "Repent and be baptized in Jesus' Name" for such nonsense. Now the 20th Century preachers even have Jesus running "for election" and the people are "to make a decision about Christ!" Or better still, they send in their "absentee ballot" by signing a decision card! (Can you imagine Peter passing out decision cards on the Day of Pentecost?). Then they plead with the unrepentant prospect to "allow Jesus to come into his heart and live." Reluctantly the new "convert" does this, but with the understanding that repentance is not needed (and is almost never even mentioned in these "plans of salvation"). And of course, no cleaning up or changing of lifestyle, for this would be "legalistic" and "bondage". You may keep smoking, drinking, acid rocking, wife swapping, living together "without benefit of clergy," -- this will all "drop off" eventually, if ever, as you "grow" and "mature". But don't worry about it. There's "no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (as long as you don't finish reading the verse, that is!) Yes, it’s all as simple as ABC -- Accept, Believe, Confess -- that's it! You're as good as signed, sealed and delivered. I know of an incident in Florida where a "worker" went into the Laundromat and asked 16 people there, who were busy doing laundry, if they believed Jesus was the Son of God and their Saviour. They all said "yes" and he proudly came out and announced that 16 people had just been born again! - Now if someone would just go in and inform them of the fact (before their clothes dry and they leave), I'm sure they would be quite surprised!

SALVATION AND "WHAT ONE DOES" Dr. Boyd criticizes the Oneness Movement in a number of places because we espouse a God who actually has requirements and conditions, starting with baptism, for those who would serve him: "One is not saved in this Theology (Oneness - ed.) by virtue of being in a gracious, loving relationship with Christ alone. Rather salvation is tied, in a most particular fashion, to what one does" (Boyd, p. 194).And we have "no motivation to love and accept people unconditionally - whether inside or outside the church" (Boyd, p. 194).We are therefore very wrong for not accepting people "unconditionally" into our church membership, fornicators, blasphemers, prostitutes and drug dealers! No conditions, just come in! God doesn't require anything -- (we are told). But our God does require repentance and change of life (And we do too!) Dr. Boyd's God does not. "Rather, we know that God is naturally being the infinitely loving God, who he eternally exists, precisely when he enters into the unconditional relationship with us that he desires" (Boyd, p. 195).He further states: "Because God is essentially social and loving, our loving relationship with him is not a sort of bridge to God we construct with our 'good behavior', as the Oneness Theology requires. Rather our relationship with Him is something God Himself accomplishes by opening up his loving sociality now to include us. Our acceptance to God is wholly based on God's performance, which manifests who God eternally is. It is not even related to our performance." (Boyd, p. 196).And this spills over into Church discipline. We are told: "...to love and accept people unconditionally -- whether inside or outside the Church" (p. 194).The results of this philosophy of God and salvation is tragic. The so-called "church" of today tolerates every abhorrent behavior and sinful lifestyle in the name of "love" and "acceptance". The plan of Salvation is reduced to a smile in God's direction. The only standard most preachers require today is that you impose no standard, on yourself or anyone else. Love, mercy, acceptance, tolerance, unconditionally are in. Repentance, judgment, accountability and holiness are out. And hell, of course, is never mentioned! David Wilkerson, who preaches a clear message of repentance and change, recently mentioned meeting so-called "born again believers" who could not see anything wrong in continuing in their jobs as "topless" dancers in a "nudie bar." After all, Christ had accepted them just as they were (topless and all!). And, naturally, they could "witness" for Christ at work! This kind of "mentality" is the direct result of the type of salvation Dr. Boyd advocates. After all, "it is not even related to our performance" (Boyd, p. 196). --And that must include those Go-Go Cages and on bar tops as well! "Every tree that bringeth forth not good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not everyone that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 7:20-21)."Doing the will of the Father" certainly sounds like a condition to be performed. How does it sound to you, dear reader? Much is said about the love of Christ, and the mercy of God. And this is certainly scriptural. But they have no use for the Christ who said: "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3), or "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire" (Mark 9:47). "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48). Though they love to quote Paul, selectively that is, they refuse to preach his gospel that men "should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:20). For it contains two words that do not fit into their "cheap grace" gospel, namely "repentance" and "works". Paul's audience didn't like it either, "For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me" (v.21). Any preacher who does set that forth as a true requirement for salvation will be killed in the jumbo church ecclesiastical temples of today. "Faith and faith alone" is all they want to hear. It may be a "fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31), but please don't mention it! For they like to picture God as a loving "Grandpa" in Heaven who tolerates any behavior in the name of love. And even though we shall "not escape if we neglect. so great salvation,” it would not be polite to mention it. It would run contrary to their idea of a very "understanding" God. I recently talked to one of these new type "Christians," a lady who owns a Christian bookstore, in which she offers for sale two blasphemous books. One of which offers the idea that Jesus' conception may have resulted from Mary having sex with Zechariahs the Priest!! And the other book advocated the church accepting and blessing pre-marital fornication and homosexual marriages!! When I pointed out to her the blasphemous contents of these books, she quickly informed me she had read them and was surprised that I was not as broad minded as she, or as tolerant! She then proceeded to inform me that the Holy Spirit guided her in the selection of these books! Perfectly good books for evangelical Christians to feed upon according to her, because God "gave us brains," and we are "free” to decide what to believe! And this my friends is the end to which all such unapostolic, "just believe," "faith alone" preaching leads to -- People that cannot be disciplined, won't be disciplined, and insist on their right to believe anything that supports their corrupt lifestyle. And we must, according to Dr. Boyd, accept them unconditionally into the church. "Our performance is not the issue" remember. JESUS UNFOLDED THE TRUE PLAN OF SALVATION TO NICODEMUS WHEN HE SAID: "...EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD." JOHN 3:5. THUS JESUS INCLUDED WATER BAPTISM IN GOD'S SAVING ECONOMY.

JESUS EMPHASIZED THE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALITY OF BAPTISM WHEN HE ANNOUNCED TO HIS APOSTLES; "HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED..." (MARK 16:16).



Pages: 151 through 166

CHAPTER XVIII

NO OTHER NAME

DO ONENESS PEOPLE IGNORE JESUS' COMMAND TO BAPTIZE "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY GHOST"?

WHY ARE TRINITARIANS TRYING TO ELIMINATE ALL BAPTISMAL FORMULAE, BOTH ONENESS AND TRINITARIAN?



IS THE FORMULA AN UNNECESSARY DETAIL?

IS FEAR HEALTHY?

THE FORMULA

G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY

WILHELM BOUSSET

DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON

DEAN STANLEY

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA

OTTO HEICK

SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

BAPTIST SCHOLAR BEASLEY-MURRAY SPEAKS OUT

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES TO "CONFESSION"

WILLISTON WALKER

ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA

NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS

JERUSALEM

SAMARIA

CAESAREA

EPHESUS

ETHIOPIA

DAMASCUS

CORINTH

ROME

GALATIA

COLOSSE

THE FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL AND BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME

WHAT ABOUT MATTHEW 28:19?

REVELATION AND RECONCILIATION

REVELATION AT PENTECOST

MATTHEW 28:19 EXPLAINED

THEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT

FINDING THE ONE NAME

THE NAME OF THE SON

THE NAME OF THE FATHER

MEANING OF THE NAME OF JESUS

NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST

NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST IS JESUS

THE APOSTLES AGREE

THE "NAMELESS" BAPTISM

THE EFFECT OF THE "NO-NAME" DOCTRINE

OPENING PANDORA'S BOX

IS THE FORMULA VERBAL?

PROOF OF VERBAL FORMULA

SCHOLARS TESTIFY TO VERBAL FORMULA

PICK A PHRASE, ANY PHRASE!

APOSTOLIC APPLICATION

PHANTOM FORMULAS



Jesus did not tell His disciples to baptize using the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He told them to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That name is JESUS!! JESUS is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Bright and Morning Star, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the Ending, the One that was, and is and is to come. THE ALMIGHTY. Every Apostle, every disciple, every writer of the New Testament was baptized in Jesus' Name. No one ever used the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in baptism. WHY DO YOU? Acts 2:38 Acts 8:14-16 Acts 10:44-48 Acts 19:1-6 Acts 22:16

IS THE FORMULA AN UNNECESSARY DETAIL? Having established the importance and essentiality of water baptism, we now turn our attention to the "formula," or words to be spoken over the candidate. If baptism is essential, then it is essential that we do it correctly. Some will argue that God is not interested in details. But what constitutes a "detail"? Was it a "detail" that the death angel was looking for that dark night in Egypt when the first-born son was slain in every house that had no blood on the doorposts and lintels? Could the Jews have varied the "details" a little and painted the windows instead? Or used red paint instead of blood? After all, they look the same, and God is not "picky." But God was "picky" that night, and details did matter. Was it just a detail when Uzzah touched the ark to steady it as it made its way down the dusty road. If it were a detail, he was killed for it! Or what about the "details" concerning the Lord's Supper? Must we use bread and fruit of the vine? The Mormons use bread and water; the Quakers use nothing; and one blaspheming modernist in Maryland set beer and pretzels on the altar. He said "the details don't matter," "God wasn't picky," as long as the intent was correct! Where will it stop as ministers relegate everything they don't agree with to "circular file" of "unnecessary details"? Boyd sums up his opposition to our insistence on the use of the New Testament formula by saying: "In other words, the God presupposed in this theology will damn a person on a technicality" (p. 145).He feels of course, that the baptismal formula is a technicality! To obey God exactly in the requirements for salvation, as we in the Oneness faith believe in doing, is characterized as "a relationship between a meticulous perfectionistic employer and his fearful employees." (p. 145).And he refers to water baptism as a "procedure the believer performs for God" (p. 145).We don't view God as a "meticulous perfectionistic" just because he sets down clearly in the Word a very simple plan for the procurement of pardon. Neither is baptism something we perform for God. For it is we, not God, who receive remission of sins. We are the sole beneficiaries of that great experience. Moses was told to be careful to "make all things according to the pattern," that was shown him. Should we do less, and use "grace" as an excuse for this "free-wheeling,” pick as you please cafeteria approach to religion? Peter silenced these arguments about the unimportance of the Name of Jesus and its employment when he said: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name ("no second name") under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12And Jesus told us something also about those who do not have particular concern about even the least of his commandments (and baptism is certainly, not that): Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: Matthew 5:19That's the principle of obedience that Christ laid down. We are not to "pick and choose" what is a technicality and what is not! We Oneness are not "fearful employees" but joyously obedient followers of Christ, who look forward to hearing: "Come thou good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord." And our desire is that we may say, as Christ did, "Lo, I come... to do thy will, O God." (Heb. 10:7). Technicalities and all! For the "volume of the book" is full of them!

IS FEAR HEALTHY? Dr. Boyd apparently thinks "fear" has no place in a "relationship between a passionately loving Father and his undeserving children" (p. 145). But we all know the results of such thinking in today's society in which the children have absolutely no fear of their parents: Promiscuous lawlessness! Paul did not agree with Dr. Boyd's "no fear" theory for he wrote: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling Phil 2:12Paul believed it was more important to tremble than to whistle! the writer to the Hebrews says: Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. Heb. 4:1Omitting the Name of Jesus in water baptism would certainly cause one to "come short", if we consider New Testament practice. Trinitarians better fear! What the modern church, which claims to be Christian, needs is a little more fear, instead of this "merrily we skip along" attitude that has developed over under the guise of "love" and "grace". The modern day evangelical convert is fast degenerating into an individual who gives his "heart to Jesus," lends his body to the devil, and keeps his mind for himself! And this is real grounds for fear! (and worry!).

THE FORMULA The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christian baptism was always performed in Jesus' name. This is the Formula and the New Testament knows no other! Dr. Boyd grudgingly hints this may be so: "Thus, even if the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' name, it should at least be very clear they did not do so with the Oneness significance..." (p. 141).He further states: "The more informed Oneness Pentecostals like to argue that Jesus' Name baptism was practiced not only in Acts, but in the second and third century as well. And, indeed, there does exist a small amount of evidence to this effect." (p. 141)."If the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' Name" he says! There's no "if" about it! We have the record, for "it is written." They baptized in no other way! He surely must admit this. He is an educated man, a graduate of Princeton! He reads the Greek; he has an open Bible; he has access to great libraries, he knows what scholarship says in this point. Before we examine the scriptural record, let us hear the conclusion reached by eminent scholars from just such a scriptural examination.

G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY This Baptist scholar and historian, fluent in classic languages, was commissioned by the Baptist Church to write a definitive volume on water baptism for the benefit of the Baptist Church. His volume is a masterpiece of research. He has left no stone unturned. The work is truly the "be all" and "end all" on the baptismal controversy. He did not consider the evidence "a small amount" for he writes: "There is not one example in the whole New Testament literature of a baptism taking place in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, p. 82-83).He further proves that baptism was performed with the invocation of Jesus Name, was associated with remission of sins, and followed by a charismatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What does that sound like? And this was from a man who has no "axe to grind" -- 2:38 or otherwise!

WILHELM BOUSSET This German historian writes, "It is still essentially a baptism in the Name of Jesus" (Wilhelm Bousett, Kurios Christos, p. 295). He goes on to say, "The Testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula (in Jesus name - ed.) down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matt. 28:19, the trinitarian formula was only later inserted" (Bousett, p. 295).

DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON He writes: "In the earliest times, however, baptism appears to have been administered 'in the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 2:38, 10:48), or 'Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16; 19:5). And on the use of the single baptismal formula St. Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 1:13 seems to be based..." (Ephesians p. 234ff).To this conclusion of Dr. Armitage is added the endorsement of Dr. Charles Gore, in his masterful work on Christian history and doctrine entitled the "Reconstruction of Belief": "I have expressed disagreement with this in the past, but I desire to retract the disagreement. I think the evidence is fairly convincing that at the beginning only the single name was used. Down to the time of the Schoolmen this view prevailed, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Th. 3A qu. 66 a. 6" (Gore, 745-746).

DEAN STANLEY He writes in Christian Institutions: the following: "Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the three-fold name -- soon superseded the simpler form of that in the 'Name of the Lord Jesus Only'."

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics edited by James Hastings states: "The formula used was 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune Name" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 2, p. 384, 1958 edition).

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible adds: "Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity" (James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 241, 1906 edition).

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol 1, pages 395-396 under "Baptism" and referring to the Trinitarian formula says: "But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian Baptism until the time of Justin Martyr, and there they are not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended form. In every account of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the day of Pentecost in the Name of Jesus Christ. The same formula was used at the Baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him. Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians: 'Were you baptized in the name of Paul?' No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles. The difficulty was considered by the Fathers. “I imagine it was!

OTTO HEICK Otto Heick's objective in his comprehensive work on Christian thought is this: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, p. 215).

SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus... which still occurs in the second and third centuries" (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p.435, 1966 edition).

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA "We gather from Acts 19:4 that John had merely baptized in the Name of the Coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. The Apostolic Age supplied the identification, and the normal use during it seems to have been, 'into Christ Jesus' or 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ' simply, or 'of the Lord Jesus Christ' (Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3, p. 368, 1910 edition).

BAPTIST SCHOLAR BEASLEY-MURRAY SPEAKS OUTG.R. Beasley-Murray, whom we previously cited, has produced what many consider the most comprehensive study on Water Baptism yet. His book, Baptism in the New Testament, is required reading for any who would gain a true biblical understanding of this rite of Christian initiation. Beasley-Murray is one of the leading New Testament scholars in England, and is, as we have mentioned, a Baptist; but his research transcends denominational lines. F.F. Bruce said concerning his book: "...it is a work of first class scholarship, and it would be a tragedy if it were to become unobtainable. “After years of study and investigation in the subject of water baptism, Beasley-Murray has determined that New Testament water baptism was performed exclusively with the single formula of "Jesus Name;" was for the remission of sins; and was further associated with Charismatic Spirit reception. (If one is "in a hurry" the same conclusion can be obtained by studying the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International or the Manual of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World!) Let us read what Dr. Beasley-Murray has to say on baptism; the fruit of years of unbiased scrutinizing of scripture and history: "The Name of the Lord Jesus is called over the baptized. He therefore dedicates himself to the Lord and is appropriated for him... This implies an effective action by which the Messiah enrolls the baptized as one of his subjects and accords to him a place in the Kingdom of God" (p. 102)."In the passage already cited, Acts 22:16, the exhortation to Paul, 'Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name,' implies that his sins will be washed away in his baptism accompanied by prayer. The word of Peter in Acts 2:38 conveys a similar impression..." (p. 102)."As has been mentioned, baptism in Acts is always administered 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or in the name of the Lord Jesus'" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) (p. 100)."That the Name was on the lips of the candidate baptized as well as uttered by the baptizer is harmonious with the dual nature of baptism as an act of man and an act of God" (p. 100)."Cleansing is the primary meaning of baptism in all religious groups that have practiced it; but when baptism is administered in the name of the Lord who died and rose for the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19), this aspect of its significance is immensely strengthened" (p. 103)."Again and again we have had cause to remind ourselves that Christian Baptism is baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus; in it the name of the Lord is called over the baptized, declaring him to be the Lord's, and the name is confessed and invoked by the baptized" (p. 120). "The significance of 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' is presumed as known without further explanation: the name of Jesus Christ is called on by the baptismal candidate in appeal for washing, consecration and righteousness, and the name of Jesus Christ is called over him by the baptizer, signifying that Jesus Christ... cleanses, consecrates, and justifies him" (p. 166).Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that Paul's expression, 'but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God," in 1 Corinthians 6:11, is a direct reference to the Jesus name baptismal formula: " 'In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' reflects the use of the name in the baptismal formula" (p. 163).He also is certain that Paul's reference to the "Spirit of our God" links water baptism in Jesus' Name with Spirit Baptism: "That the experience of the Spirit is linked with baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus needs no further demonstration after our discussion of the evidence on this matter in the Book of Acts" (p. 163).He also feels it is "difficult to disassociate the 'washing' of 1 Cor. 6:11 from the baptismal cleansing" (p. 163).So do we! Interestingly enough, Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that 1 Cor. 6:11 might have been used after Paul's death as the basis for the newly evolving Trinitarian formula which eventually replaced the original apostolic Jesus' name formula. The reason for this suggestion is that 1 Cor. 6:11 mentions Jesus, the Spirit, and God in one paragraph. Trinitarian innovators might have seized that to justify their new "replacement" formula. He writes: "This is insufficient evidence for the existence in Paul's time of a baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it provides a hint of the way in which the Trinitarian formula arose..." (p. 167).Dr. Beasley-Murray is also in agreement with Oneness Pentecostalism in linking a Charismatic Spirit Baptism with water baptism in Jesus' name. He writes: "The third and perhaps most impressive gift of God in baptism is the Spirit, the possession of which was frequently accompanied in the earliest church by spectacular Charismatic gifts and signs. That the gift should be associated with baptism is to be expected. For baptism in the name of the Messiah Jesus related the believer to the Lord of the kingdom, who had received the Spirit from the Father that he might pour him forth upon his people..." (p. 104)."...we cannot doubt that this inward sealing of the Spirit is conceived as taking place in baptism in the name of Jesus, when the name was invoked and called over the baptized..." (p. 174)."thus the 'seal of the Spirit' is neither baptism in water, nor a baptism in the Spirit divorced from the rite of baptism; it is the 'Baptism of the Spirit' in association with the laying of the name of Jesus on a believer in the rite of baptism" (p. 174)."The seal of the Spirit however, is in inward possession which none but God can see, apart from its effects in character, behavior, and the Charismata" (p. 175).There is all the evidence one needs: over 400 pages of unbiased research conducted by a world-renowned scholar of the Baptist Faith. His conclusion? Baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins, accompanied by Spirit baptism with charismatic evidences! Why was none of this impressive array of evidence for the Jesus' name formula ever mentioned by Dr. Boyd? Why, in the face of his mountain of research, did Dr. Boyd fail to quote it even once? A scholar like Beasley-Murray is known in every theological seminary, his reputation spans two continents, he carries the highest endorsements, and his name occurs in many bibliographies. Yet he is never once called to the stand by Dr. Boyd respecting the Jesus name formula. Is this type of "exegesis" indicative of future trends in presenting "all the facts?" Forbid it, Almighty God!

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES TO "CONFESSION “Perhaps the most astonishing proof of the alteration of the baptismal formula from Jesus name to triune titles comes from the "alternators" themselves -- the Catholic Church! Some years ago, before I ever dreamed I would be writing this book, I was driving past a thrift store when the Lord impressed on me to stop and go in. I was not in the habit of doing this, but I obeyed. Once inside the Lord directed me to a cabinet of old used books. I began to search through them. There among the old books I found an official Catholic Catechism, with the Bishop's "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat." These are Latin terms which means the book is officially approved as containing "nothing objectionable" or contrary to Catholic teaching. Guided by the Lord I turned to the section dealing with water baptism. It was then I realized why the Lord had been so patiently directing my steps. I was astonished to read this official Catholic admission concerning the original baptismal formula: IN THIS ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT THE ORIGINAL BAPTISM WAS, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS" AND MUST HAVE BEEN CHANGED AFTER THE DISCIPLES' DEATH.

"The earliest practice of the Church was probably to baptize converts 'in the name of Jesus' (Acts 10:48; 19:5) since in baptism it was his Lordship they confessed and into his body they were incorporated" (An American Catholic Catechism, p. 112).What more is needed? As Augustine said, "Rome has spoken; case closed!" If that is not enough, then surely this quote from an equally "official" Catholic Encyclopedia will provide the final "coup de grace" to this painfully recalcitrant stonewalling by Trinitarians. It reads as follows: "An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of Baptism cannot be found in the first century" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967, p. 59)."Higher mathematics" can surely be employed here by our opponents to put "two and two together." For if the original formula was baptism in Jesus' name (An American Catholic Catechism), and the Trinitarian formula was unheard of for at least 100 years (New Catholic Encyclopedia), then what conclusion is possible other than one which maintains that the Triadic formula for baptism was an unapostolic invention, birthed late in time, and devoid of New Testament precedent or approbation. The Catholics admit it, the Baptists admit it, scholars admit it, historians admit it -- in fact, among most critical New Testament researchers it's not even considered a debatable point any longer! Why doesn't Dr. Boyd come in? It’s getting awfully cold out there. He once warmed himself by the fires of this great truth, till an "ill wind" blew him elsewhere. God grant that he return is my ascending prayer.

WILLISTON WALKER Evidence continues to pour down upon u from every direction. Williston Walker, noted historian adds: "With the early disciples generally baptism was 'in the Name of Jesus Christ'" (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 87).

ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA And from the Encyclopedia Biblica: " 'In the Name of Jesus Christ' or 'of the Lord Jesus.’ The former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and 10:48, The latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16... From these passages, and from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1:13 ('Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the Name of Paul?') it is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the Name of Jesus Christ' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of Baptismal Confession appears to have been single -- not triple, as was the later creed." (Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 1, p. 473, 1899 edition).Thus we have it from the word of scholarship and history. The verdict is in -- Baptism in Jesus Name. This is unbiased evidence. Not one of these men were personally baptized in Jesus Name. If they espoused any faith at all, it was Trinitarian. But concerning the Triune baptismal formula they are unanimous -- "not one example in the whole New Testament," "doubtless" of later origin, "no evidence" for its use, "no mention of it in the New testament," "not given in any description" in the New Testament, and "no record can be discovered in the Acts." This is all quite damaging to Dr. Boyd's "if the earliest disciples" theory. I wouldn't want to be in court with these witnesses taking stand against me. Their testimony for "Jesus Name" being the original formula is equally compelling. For they consider the evidence "overwhelming" and "convincing" being from "the earliest times," and "found in every account." they find that "at the beginning" it is only "the single name." the "New Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus" for it was "administered from the earliest times" and "confirmed" by "baptismal confessions." What can Dr. Boyd and fellow Trinitarians say in the face of all this evidence? Do they also believe the earth is flat?

NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS These scholars all independently reached the same conclusion through an examination of the baptismal accounts in the Book of Acts and the witness of history. Let us turn our attention to the record of baptisms in the New Testament Church.

JERUSALEM The Jews on the day of Pentecost, together with their Gentile proselytes were commanded to Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

SAMARIA Phillip the evangelist went there preaching the "Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12). Where upon the Samaritans in a great citywide revival were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Act 8:16).

CAESAREA Cornelius, and those of his household, the first Gentile believers, listened carefully to Peter's sermon that through Jesus' Name "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” During the sermon they were filled with the Holy Ghost and Peter therefore commanded that they should "be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48 R.V.). Being filled with the Holy Ghost did not excuse them from baptism in Jesus Name, but rather made it incumbent upon them!

EPHESUS Paul met some converts who knew only the teaching of John the Baptist, having been baptized of him. Paul, in spite of this, ordered their rebaptism in Jesus' Name after they learned fully of Christ: And when they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5).Anyone learning this truth needs to be "rebaptized" from whatever other form they had.

ETHIOPIA Phillip joined himself to the chariot of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was traveling to his homeland, and preached Jesus unto him. When the Ethiopian believed on Jesus Christ, "They went down both into the water, both Phillip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). What was Phillip's formula for baptism? Acts 8:16 informs us that it was "in the name of the Lord Jesus." he certainly wouldn't change his formula in one day.

DAMASCUS Paul, blinded by his experience with Christ on the Damascus Road, makes his way to that city to await healing and further instruction. This is quick to arrive as Annanias enters the house and informs him: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). Paul was baptized with the "invocation of the Name of the Lord Jesus." This required having the Name called "upon" him. Acts 15:17.

CORINTH Paul, writing to this church, which was torn by splits, puts these questions to them: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:13).The obvious answers are: Paul was not crucified for them, Christ was; they were not baptized in the Name of Paul, but in the Name of Christ. Unless they were baptized in the name of the undivided Christ, his argument would not make sense. Corinth was baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.

ROME The Church at Rome was "baptized into Jesus Christ": Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? (Rom 6:3).

Gladiate Galatians likewise were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ: For as man of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27).

Closeted Colossians were also "buried with Christ in baptism" (Col. 2:12), and this is defined in Rom. 6:3 as a baptism "into Jesus Christ". Hence the Colossians received the one Apostolic baptism -- in the name of Jesus Christ! All of the above mentioned churches were founded by either Peter or Paul or Phillip. We know Peter's formula was "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38, 10:48), Phillip's was in the Name of the Lord Jesus (8:16). And the one Paul used was the same (Acts 19:5).. In the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every thing be established.

THE FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL AND BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME In fact, the first Church Council, unlike subsequent Catholic Councils, ruled that the Name of the Lord Jesus was to be called upon all Gentile Converts. We read this in Acts 15:14-17 where it is stated that "God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name." And how is this done? We are not left in the dark: "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." Now I ask, in what rite or ordinance does a believer have the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ called "upon him" if it is not baptism in that Name? Of all the Church Councils and their decrees that Trinitarians love to quote, why do they always pass this one by? Not much is said about this baptismal creed, is there?

WHAT ABOUT MATTHEW 28:19?The only thing that remains now is to reconcile these references with our Lord's command in Matthew 28:19 in which the Apostles are commanded to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And this task is easy to do. And it is precisely in linking this command with the references in Acts that produces automatically the reconciliation and perfect agreement of all texts concerning water baptism.

REVELATION AND RECONCILIATION To reconcile the command by Christ in Matthew 28:19 to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" wit the passages in Acts, in which all converts were baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is the task now before us. Ingersoll, the famous atheist orator, frequently used this apparent contradiction to show that the Bible contained discrepancies. But it is neither a discrepancy nor a contradiction. If men would cease looking to church councils for their "enlightenment,” and return to the "fountain of living waters,” they would begin to see "all things clearly." Boyd is sure that "when Jesus commands us to baptize 'in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' he is not cryptically making some esoteric self-reference that must be decoded for believers to be baptized correctly and therefore saved" (Boyd, p. 143).But in so stating, he contradicts the Lord, for Jesus told His disciples that he was indeed speaking of the Father "cryptically" as Dr. Boyd phrases it. These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs (parables -- margin): but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs (parables), but I will show plainly of the Father (John 16:25).A parable must be "decoded" for it is "cryptic". His references to the Father were in just such a category; not "plain" but "parabolic". But Christ promised a time when the Spirit would arrive (John 14:16-19), then they would get the promised revelation concerning the Father: at that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20).And that day, of course, would be Pentecost. It was on that day the Apostles would receive the promised Revelation mentioned in Luke 10:22: ...and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father; and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. By Christ's own definition, the baptismal reference in Matt. 28:19 to the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was one of His parabolic statements, that would not be made plain until the day, namely Pentecost, when they would receive the promised Revelation and have the father shown plainly to them! And this occurred and right on time.

REVELATION AT PENTECOST Carl Brumback in his book, God in Three Persons, disputes the Apostles received any Godhead revelation on Pentecost and demands we show where it was received. "It is necessary for the Oneness to assume that Peter at Pentecost received a 'revelation' that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for it is not written!..." (Brumback, p. 77).But it is written and "plain to him that understandeth and right to them that find knowledge" (Proverbs 8:9)! At the climax of his sermon, Peter declares by divine revelation: Therefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).It is obvious that something startling and apparently paradoxical is being presented by the qualifying terms "same" and "both." That one and the selfsame person could be both Lord and Christ, is something that only God could have made happen! It s a miracle! The word "Lord" here is "Kyrios," which is the Greek term used in the New Testament for Jehovah. Wherever Jehovah appears in the Old Testament, it is translated in the New by Kyrios. Thus the Old Testament phrase in Joel that "whosoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved," is rendered in the New Testament by "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved." So Peter, in revealing Jesus as Lord and Christ, is actually announcing that Jesus is both Jehovah and Messiah -- the same person is both! Calling him Jehovah is the equivalent of calling him God or Father, for the Jews believed in no other God than God the Father who had revealed Himself under the Name Jehovah (Mal. 2:10, Is. 63:16; 64:8 and John 8:41). This same Jesus is also the Christ, the Anointed Man, the Son of God who was born to save "his people from their sins." Acts 4:26 makes it quote clear that Lord and Christ is simply another way of saying Father and Son; and Jesus is both! It is now very "plain,” no longer a "parable," but truly "revealed." This same Jesus is both Father and Son, Jehovah and Christ, divine and human, God and Son of God, in the one selfsame person of our Lord Jesus Christ! And God has made this to happen, by raising Christ from the dead and simultaneously taking up "residence" in His immortal glorified temple. So it could be truly said that in Christ "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." The Father is dwelling in the Son (John 14:10). Jehovah is embodied in the flesh of His Messiah, the Christ. That is why when the Jews cried out asking what to do, Peter commanded them to be baptized in Jesus' Name -- for it is the Name of the Father, and of the Son; for this same Jesus is both! Peter's command in Acts 2:38 is the divinely sanctioned interpretation of what it means to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hoy Spirit. And that's the only Biblical explanation ever given!

MATTHEW 28:19 EXPLAINED Let us now revisit Matthew 28:19 in the light of this revelation: The first thing we notice is that Jesus refers to the One Name and One Name Only. For "Name" is in the singular. He is not speaking about "names," plural, but one name, singular. And this One Name is -- the Name of the father, and also of the Son, and even more, it is also the Name of the Holy Spirit. And it is in this One Name of the Godhead we are to baptize.

THEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT Dr. Boyd tries to downplay the significance of the singular name in Matt 28:19 as of no great consequence: "The bottom line is that there need be nothing theologically significant about the singularity of ‘the Name’ in Matt. 28:19" (Boyd, p. 143). But my library is filled with book sin, which Trinitarians have pondered and tried to explain this singularity, and come up with all sorts of revelations of their own! Many come close to the truth, but because like all Trinitarians, they are "reasoning in chains", they never arrive. For they are not allowed to stray too far from their man devised creeds, which bind them fast to their "distinct person theory." Take for example this quote from Robert L. Reymond, Presbyterian: "Jesus does not say 'into the names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' ...What he does say is this, 'into the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'; first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of single name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinction of each..." (Robert L. Reymond, Jesus Divine Messiah, p. 84).This "singular name" comment was so theologically appealing that Ron Rhodes has reproduced it in his book, Christ Before the Manger, on. p. 28. Andrew Jukes found it intriguing and also "theologically significant" for he writes: "First then 'the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' is one name, not three or many. Our Lord did not say, 'Baptizing them into the names' but 'into the name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'" (Andrew Jukes, The Names of God, p. 174-175).So we are not the only ones who notice something "theologically significant" about the singular name! But the significance of it is not in uniting "three persons" but in revealing One!

FINDING THE ONE NAME Seeing Jesus declared there is but one name common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, let us find that name scripturally. THE NAME OF THE SON We shall start to solve this equation by considering the middle factor first. What is the Name of the Son? This is easy and all Christendom is in agreement. The Name of the Son is Jesus. "And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins" Matt 1:21. But the writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus "inherited" his name, for "he hat by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name" (Heb. 1:4). From whom did he therefore inherit this name; the name the angel brought down from heaven?

THE NAME OF THE FATHER Jesus does not leave us in doubt as to whose name it was he bore. In John 5:43 he declares: I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. This name was not "his own name," but had been His Father's name before Him! He came bearing the Name of the Father. The name Jesus is also the Father's name! The original Greek of John 17:11,12 brings this out clearly. I am quoting from the Revised Version: Holy Father, keep them in thy Name, which thou has given me and I kept them in Thy Name, which Thou has given me. Weymouth’s Translation reads: I have kept them in thy Name -- The Name Thou hast given me to bear. No wonder Christ could say "I have manifested thy name!" (John 17:6). The only name he ever manifested was "Jesus" for "his name was spread abroad" (Mark 6:14). Is it unusual for a Father and Son to have the same name? Doesn't every legitimate Son bear his father's name? Jesus said "I have declared unto them thy Name, and will declare it" (John 17:26). Aren't the mighty signs and wonders being done in Jesus' Name, and the Baptisms being performed in Jesus' Name, a fulfillment of Christ's prophecy that he "will declare it." MEANING OF THE NAME OF JESUS And why should there be any doubt that Jesus is also the name of the Father? The Name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Jahoshea" (or Joshua) which means "Jehovah the Saviour." When you say the Name Jesus, you are actually saying in contracted form "Jehovah the Saviour." The "Je" is from "Jehovah,” God’s revealed name in the Old Testament. Even Trinitarians admit the name Jehovah is applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, their entire "Trinity." Then why would not the name Jesus (Jehovah-Saviour) be equally applicable to all "three persons," especially seeing that all three play an indispensable part in the plan of Salvation? We have thus seen the name of the Father and of the Son is included in the Name of Jesus. All that remains is to determine the Name of the Holy Ghost.

NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST The final piece of this Name revelation falls into place beautifully. Like the Temple of Solomon, in which each stone was first quarried and polished, and then brought to Jerusalem and silently fitted into place, so the name of the Holy Ghost moves by divine utterance into the completed trilogy. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, he shall teach you all things... (John 14:26).-- The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, comes to earth in Jesus' Name, bearing Jesus' name, and manifesting it. How could it be otherwise for the Comforter is Jesus?! I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you. (John 14:18).For this same reason he is called the Spirit of Christ, and Christ (Romans 8:9-10). "Christ in you" (Col. 1:27), or in other words, Christ in His Spirit nature come to dwell in us.

NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IS JESUS Thus we have seen demonstrated clearly and simply from the lips of Christ Himself that the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is Jesus. For the Son's Name is Jesus, and He bore the Father's Name, who sent the Spirit with the same Name! In Proverbs we are asked: Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell? Prov 30:4Thanks to Oneness light -- we can tell! It is Jesus!

THE APOSTLES AGREE That our conclusion is correct concerning the "Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" is proven by the witness of the Apostles. For they were commanded to baptize in the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All their baptisms were performed in the Name of Jesus. therefore by comparison it is quickly seen that they recognized the name of Jesus as the one Name referred to in Matt 28:19. (See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16). And it is through this name, and no other, that the door to cleanness and justification is open to us through water baptism. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1Cor 6:11

THE "NAMELESS" BAPTISM Panicking in the face of this tidal wave of scriptural evidence for Baptism in Jesus' Name, Dr. Boyd unveils to our astonished eyes one of the most bizarre theories ever advanced against the truth. He decided to take the "bull by the horns" and throw out all baptismal formulas, trinitarian and Oneness, and reduce Christian baptism to a wordless initiation! His desperation to rid the church of the New testament Formula of Jesus' Name seems to know no bounds. He is even willing to sacrifice the cherished Trinitarian formula as the price to pay. He has, so to speak, untie the Gordian Knot by cutting it in two! Nettled by the truth of the New Testament, and cornered by Church History, he opts to throw out not only "the baby with the bathwater" but the bathtub also! Hear him as he boldly goes "where angels fear to tread." We read, "Because the Semitic phrase 'in the name of ' could have such a wide variety of meanings, there is no more reason to take the Acts phrase 'in the Name of Jesus' as an audible liturgical formula than there is to think that the Matthean formula was to be taken like this" (p. 111).Better no formula, than "Jesus' Name" is his motto. We have often pointed out to Trinitarians in the past that if the phrase "in the name of Jesus" is interpreted to only mean "by the authority of" and thereby eliminated as a spoken formula, then the same interpretation must be applied to "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and that too would be eliminated as a formula. The point we were trying to make was that the whole interpretation was wrong in the first place. Most Trinitarians have seen it that way once it was pointed out, and abandoned that interpretation rather than part wit their formula. Dr. Boyd on the other hand has decided to use this incorrect interpretation (as I will prove) to eliminate both formulas! Of course to do this he flies in the face of two thousand years of Church practice, and proposes something even the Arian heretics dared not try. Augustine, Tertullian, Aquinas, the Cappodocians and every other "great saint" of the church he so admires would curse him for it (and some like the "great reformer" John Calvin, would burn him for it!)

THE EFFECT OF THE "NO-NAME" DOCTRINE One can only imagine the effect such a "pro-choice", renegade theory would unleash in the Church World if it were taken seriously (which, Thank God, no one does!) Ministers would begin tailor fitting their own baptismal formulas to meet the occasion. Compromises would be made to the point of lunacy. I can almost hear some modern day "love is all that matters" preacher standing on the shore line in California (why is it always California?) with his new convert: MINISTER: And what say ye of the "Faith once delivered to the saints?" CANDIDATE: I think it's neat, man! MINISTER: And what think ye of the Christ? CANDIDATE: He was cool, like really cool, you follow? MINISTER: Yes, yes, I follow, "Upon the confession of your faith I now Baptize you into the neatness of Christianity and the coolness of Christ. Amen! “Don’t think I am exaggerating or being ludicrous for the sake of argument. Today's' ever adapting, relativistic church, needs little encouragement to fly off into such "meaningful" excursions into "restructuring." The "wild blue yonder" is always beckoning them!

OPENING PANDORA'S BOX Dr. Boyd would open such a Pandora's Box, and rob baptism of any fixed scriptural significance, just to fulfill some strange obsession against Oneness and anything related to it. His "latest thing down the tubes" theory is as unacceptable as it is bizarre -- and totally unnecessary. I had once heard of a Pastor in the Midwest who pronounced the baptismal formula in "unknown tongues" so as to avoid any confrontation over which formula was correct! And I though that would never be topped in my lifetime. But I am afraid that in this category, Dr. Boyd sweeps away an Oscar for Best Performance.

IS THE FORMULA VERBAL? What he is saying through his "Semitic phrase" arguments is simply that when the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" occurs in Acts it does not represent something verbal or actually uttered. It is a rather saccharine-like atmosphere or state of mind: "When it is said that certain believers were baptized 'in the Name of the lord Jesus,' this need mean nothing more than what is meant by giving a cup of cold water to someone 'in the name of a disciple' " (Boyd, p. 144).He goes on: "It merely means that baptism 'for the forgiveness of sins' derives its significance and beauty from the person of Jesus Christ to whom it centrally points" (p. 144).And all this without saying His Name; you just point, don't talk! In fact he says there was no evidence before the fourth century "that the words spoken over a candidate at baptism were any big deal." (p. 145). No big deal, you see, just say what you want; let’s get it over with! Thank God we are not left to his interpretation, but we have the record, for again "it is written!"

PROOF OF VERBAL FORMULA Does "in the name of Jesus" mean to verbally pronounce it? It certainly does! Here is the proof: The disciples were commanded to heal the sick and cast out devils in "Jesus' Name" (Mark 16:17-18). How did they use the name? Verbally! Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 3:6It was quite a "big deal" for that poor lame man, for he went into the temple "walking, and leaping, and praising God." (v. 8). Does Dr. Boyd suppose it would have been just as effective if Peter and John had just pointed up to Heaven, silently, and smiled, until the lame man understood the "significance and beauty" of it all? The Apostles felt differently; they uttered the Name! Another case comes to mind. This one involving the demon possession of a certain damsel. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. Acts 16:18It must have been a "big deal" for the demon, for "he came out the same hour." And it was a verbally uttered formula that did it. When they prayed "in Jesus' Name" they said it. The apostolic prayer in Acts 4 concludes By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus Acts 4:30and... ...when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together Acts 4:31.Whether this was "significant and beautiful " I cannot tell, but it certainly was powerful! If healing "in Jesus Name" was verbal, and if expelling demons "in Jesus Name" was verbal, and if praying "in Jesus Name" was verbal, why does Dr. Boyd insist baptism "in Jesus' Name" was not? I prefer the scriptural examples, to his "Semitic theories."

SCHOLARS TESTIFY TO VERBAL FORMULA Now for the testimony of Greek Scholarship. Arndt and Gingrich point out that the phrase "in the name of" (in to onomati) used with God or Jesus means in most cases "with mention of the name, while naming or calling on the name" (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 572). The same authorities also mention that the verb "called" (epikoleo) in Acts 15:17 ("all the gentiles upon whom my name is called") means: "someone's name is called over someone to designate the latter as property of the former's" (p. 572).This same verb "called" is used in James 2:7 which says: Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? James 2:7The Amplified Bible's Commentary states that this is "the Name of Christ invoked at baptism" (The Amplified Bible, p. 360). Dr. Gore writes in his thoroughly researched history of early church practice: "And the shelter of that name belongs to those only who have had it invoked upon them in baptism and have received the Spirit of Jesus within them." (Gore, Reconstruction, p. 640).Dr. Armitage Robinson says: "It is plain that the phrase 'in the name of' indicates some solemn utterance by the accompaniment of which the washing of water is made to be no ordinary bath, but the sacrament of baptism" (Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).He further states: "It is probable then that the 'name' here referred to (in 1 Cor. 1:13 -- ed.) is the solemn mention of the Lord Jesus Christ in connection with the rite of baptism whether as the confession made by the candidate, or as the formula employed by the ministrant" (Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).

PICK A PHRASE, ANY PHRASE! Everything draws to the same conclusion, -- (Bible Scholarship, Linguistics, Reason) -- something had to have been said, something was said, and that something was the Name of Jesus. But this will not do for Dr. Boyd. On pages 142 to 143 he serves up no less than eight different interpretations of what "in the name of" could mean; what he calls a "wide variety of applications." And we'll see how wide! It could mean: "in relation to," "with respect to its intentions," "with an obligation towards," "in the authority of," or "a principal of behavior. “It could even mean "With a view towards" "in the light of" or "in appreciation of. “Take one of them, or two of them, any of them, all of them, or none of them! Just so you don't verbally utter the name of Jesus. You have quite a selection so don't be hasty. If one "doesn't get you out of it" the next one will. Plenty of grass for this mill! It seems strange indeed that any Christian would expend so much energy trying to prevent the Name of Jesus from being spoken.

APOSTOLIC APPLICATION How long shall [this] be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, [they are] prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, Jeremiah 23:26-27The Apostles certainly didn't have this attitude. They were commanded to "speak henceforth to no man in this name" (Acts 4:17) and that they "should not teach in this name" (Acts 5:28). They certainly were doing more than just "pointing" or "thinking". They must have been wielding that Name verbally. Saul's goal was to destroy "them that call on His Name" (Acts 9:21). He must have heard something! When the Jewish rulers demanded of Peter and John "by what power or by what name have ye done this?" (Acts 4:7), Peter answered for all Oneness believers when he verbally said, "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead." (v.10) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12

PHANTOM FORMULAS Thus in an attempt to eliminate any formula for baptism, Dr. Boyd has gotten his feet all tangled up in flight. He first maintained that there was a "small amount of evidence in favour of the Jesus' Name formula" (p. 141). Then he refers to third century references to "the Trinitarian Formula or mode for baptism 'along side’ the supposed 'Jesus Only formula' " (p. 141). Next he finds the Trinitarian formula becomes "the dominant formula for baptism" from the beginning of the Second Century on. (p. 142). And finally ending on the high note that there really was no formula at all, Trinitarian or Oneness! (p. 143). These formulas are very ethereal -- first they exist "side by side," then one is "dominant" over the other, and then we must learn they weren't there at all! Under what lack of evidence must a writer labour who resorts to such argument? Phantom formulas that appear and disappear like apparitions in the night!



26.

From the website: http://www.answers.com/topic/trinity

Please take special note of the section in BOLD and UNDERLINED part below.

Results for trinity

Under section name:

Trinitarian Theology

Baptism as the beginning lesson

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized." "This is the Faith of our baptism," the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence.[28] The formula is found in the Didache,[29] Ignatius,[30] Tertullian,[31] Hippolytus,[32] Cyprian,[33] and Gregory Thaumaturgus.[34] Though the formula has early attestation, the Acts of the Apostles only mentions believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5). There are no Biblical references to baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit outside of Matthew 28:19, nor references to baptism in the name of (the Lord) Jesus (Christ) outside the Acts of the Apostles.[35]



27.

From the website: http://geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm and related pages

also found at: http;//www.letusreason.org/Oneness20.htm

Come Let Us Reason Together Ministries

Topic: TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) Unites Oneness Pentecostals with Trinitarians

This is an excerpt from TBN 3/8/99 with a Trinitarian Bishop Clarence McClendon and Oneness Pentecostal Bishop Noel Jones

‘Oneness Pentecostalism – This teaching found support with two early Bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus. Zephyrinus was the head Bishop at the time and was attracted to Modalistic view. Caught between two major factions trying to keep the peace, he was advised by his soon to be successor Callistus on how to keep both sides satisfied. After Zephyrinus died in 217 A.D. Callistus kept his policy and Modalism became the official theory in Rome for almost a generation.

Adolf von Harnack in his book ‘The History of Dogma’ actually states, “Modalism… was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome.”



28.

From the website: http://oldlandmark.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/%e2%80%9cfor-the-remission-of-sins%e2%80%9d-ancient-writings-on-the-efficacy-of-baptism/

The Old Landmark: Celebrating Apostolic Heritage

‘Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.’ Prov. 22.28



“For the Remission of Sins”: Ancient Writings on the Efficacy of Baptism[13]

“Water baptism is the most ancient rite in Christianity, and the New Testament is replete with examples of baptism by immersion from John’s baptism of repentance in the River Jordan to the proselytes of the Apostles to the epistolary metaphors of baptism as burial with Christ (Rom. 6:4) and Noah’s ark (I Pt. 3.20-21). While most Christian denominations observe some ordinance of baptism, the majority of Protestants reduce the act to a mere public profession of faith, decrying the doctrine of remission of sins in baptism as “salvation by works” rather than “salvation by grace.” In fact, neither biblical exegesis nor history divides baptism from salvation. Patristical writings, which are non-canonical, post-Apostolic epistles and apologetics, provide ample evidence that early Christians universally accepted water baptism as the sole mode for remitting sins.”

“St. Clement, purportedly the same Clement named by Paul in Philippians, asks in a letter to the Corinthians: ” . . . shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, come into the kingdom of God?” (Hoole 57). Clearly, Clement identifies Christian baptism as the moment of cleansing. St. Barnabas examines foreshadowing of baptism and the cross in the Old Testament: “Concerning the water, it is written with respect to Israel, how that they will not receive the baptism that bringeth remission of sins, but will establish one for themselves” (Hoole 86). Further, he writes: “Learn ye: having received the remission of our sins, and having hoped upon the name of the Lord, we have become new, having been again created entirely” (Hoole 97). These passages explicitly connect the erasure of sins with water baptism, and Barnabas explains that this accompanies hoping on the Name of the Lord, the most primitive apostolic baptismal formula.”

“The Shepherd of Hermas, a 2nd century apocalyptic work, supports both the notion of baptism by immersion and for spiritual cleansing: ” . . . we went down into the water and obtained remission of our former sins” (Lightfoot 425). Hermas, like Barnabas, refers to invocation of the Name of Jesus in the rite: “‘For before a man,’ saith he, ‘has borne the name of [the Son of] God, he is dead; but when he has received the seal, he layeth aside his deadness, and resumeth life. The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and they come up alive” (Lightfoot 472). Baptism in the Name of Jesus is, in Hermas, regenerative.”

“Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”, but he retained the Apostolic teaching of baptism for the remission of sins: “[We] may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings” (Roberts and Donaldson 60).”

“While the New Testament doctrine of water baptism by immersion solely in the Name of Christ degenerated with the increasing schisms and encroaching apostasy of the early Church, the nascent Catholic communion retained the biblical connection between baptism and the remission of sins. The Roman Creed, which dates from the 3rd century, includes a generic belief in the “remission of sins”, and the 4th century Nicene Creed says: “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” Though most Protestants eschew the idea of spiritual regeneration in the baptismal ceremony, the scriptural view espoused by modern Oneness Pentecostals is greatly supported both by the primary text of God’s Word and the most ancient bishops and apologists for the Christian faith. Baptism is an indisputable element of the New Birth; and by faith in the redemptive work of the blood of Jesus Christ; our sins are truly washed away in the fountain of His forgiveness.”



29.

From the website: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/in-my-name.htm:

"Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name''

Matthew 28:19 as Quoted by Eusebius Pamphili (~260 - 340 A.D.)

[Quotation found in his “Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine,” Chapter XVI, (335 A.D.), in “The Church History of Eusebius”, Book III, Chapter V (324 A.D.). in his Demonstratio Evangelica Book III, Chapter 6 (318 A.D.), in his Theophania, etc. (contexts in Appendix 1).

From earlier manuscripts, Eusebius Pamphilus quoted Matthew 28:19 in his writings without any trinitarian formula (to see other studies done by renown scholars).

Genuine ancient manuscripts did read in Mt. 28:19 as follows (see the original consistency in the use of the first person as underlined):

“Mt. 28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt. 28:19: Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name:
Mt. 28:20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

And not as we have it altered now in all the latter Bible versions:

Mt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them * in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

That altered commandment, as we have it printed now, was never fulfilled by any of the Apostles, because it was not the original order given to them by Jesus Christ. We can easily see it, if we read by ourselves the book of Acts (and/or all books of the New Testament). This truth can only be seen by those who have “eyes to see and ears to ear”, not by those which have been already blinded (cauterized) by the traditions of men. The Word of God needs to be our own and our only norm of belief and practice, not doctrines or dogmas made by men, neither men’s religions or writings. If we compare the original and trustworthy Scriptures of the Bible as originally revealed by God, with church history and writings of men, we can see the abyss of difference, and then we can decide if we are going to believe in God’s Word or in men’s opinions (history in Appendix 2, quotations in Appendix 3).

Notoriously, Brian Hoeck reports that more recently, at least two New Testament ancient texts have been found that make no mention of any trinitarian formula in Mt. 28:19:

"Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place." (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636).

And:

"Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's, Evan Bohan).

Ethelbert W. Bullinger states: "…there is one great difficulty with regard to the [trinitarian] words [in Mt. 28:19, as we have them in our versions now]: …that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism * was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus. "It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text. As to the Greek MSS, there are none beyond the fourth Century [Note: And of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus---BOTH CORRUPT. All other known Greek MSS are from 5th Century and upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words. It looks… as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa [possibly Alexandria, Alexander’s and Athanasius’ headquarters, see Appendix 3]; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS at their disposal" (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp. 47-49).

Fredrick C. Conybeare notes that, “it may be remarked that in the oldest Syriac MS the folio which contained the end of Matthew has disappeared” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 275), and that “in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew”… “Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long Commentaries on the Psalms, Commentaries on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous History of the Church, and in his Panegyric of the Emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you”… I have collected all these passages in the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901, except one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine”.

Conybeare continues: “Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words “in my name”. It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice. The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the Trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of [both] baptism or of the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' [in Matthew 28:19]” (Hibbert Journal, 1902).

The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states that Mt 28:19 "is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view [trinitarian formula]. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism… The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one 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… the traditional [trinitarian] text was brought about by the [trinitarian baptismal] influence working on the Eusebian [Gospel of Matthew, which originally stated "in My name"] text”.

Martineau in his “Seat of Authority” Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 515 writes: “The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations, betrayed itself by speaking in the trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself.” Hoeck asks, “How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come?” Fred Conybeare notes, "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to [the nowadays forged] Matthew 28:19 is once cited--but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows--'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' " (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287). But even this may be a forgery not produced by Theodotus, but by Clement himself, as Dr. P. M. Barnard, who collected the N. T. citations of Clement in a volume of the Cambridge Texts and Studies suggests. For other spurious quotations see Appendix 3.

Regarding baptism*, there is no record in the New Testament that any baptism using a trinitarian command was ever carried out by the Apostles. They always used the name of Jesus Christ, but never any trinitarian formula. The Apostles were obedient to the real order in Matthew 28:19 as originally given by their Lord and Master Jesus Christ, before his ascension to heaven. The following verses show the truth of what the Apostles did:

“Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

“For as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord *. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts 10:48).

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

The word trinity or its formula was not present in the original manuscripts of the Bible. Contrary to that Trinitarian formula, a cross validation even of the words of Jesus Christ at that very moment, sets for us to see, if we want to, the truth of what he really have had said:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).

The same Luke gave us the most detailed account of Jesus’ last words before his ascent to heaven in the book of Acts:

“…unto the apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen [including Jude, the traitor apostle, present still at this moment, later killing himself]… he [Jesus] shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days… being [Jesus] assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with holy spirit not many days hence… ye shall receive power, after that the holy spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up…” (Acts 1:2b-5, 8-9a).

Jesus never declared, “you will be witnesses of the holy trinity”, but rather “ye shall be witnesses unto me”.

By simple scripture build up we can see complementary information given by Mark:

“And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized [with holy spirit (Acts 1:5)] shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover [all these are “manifestations of the spirit” within us (1 Cor. Ch. 12 to Ch. 14)]. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mk 16:15-20).

Jesus never said “in the name of the trinity you will cast demons”, rather “In my name shall they cast out devils [Gk. daimonia]”

The conclusions of all writings of the Apostle John are also significant:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn 20:30-31).

“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1Jn 5:13).

John words are: “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. John never said that his writings were written “that we might believe that Jesus is God the Son”, as religion, twisting interpretations of the very same writings of John and of the rest of the scriptures, desire us to believe, trying to prevent that more people, with all their religious twisting of the truth, could be born again, and have life through Jesus’ name, and to know that we have eternal life. John wrote many comparisons regarding who Christ is, he is: the word (1:1), the water (7:37), the bread (6:35), the light (8:12), the good shepherd (10:11), the door (10:7), the true vine (15:1), etc. Hoverer, religion misunderstood him, and adulterated the gift of holy spirit, transforming it in a third “person” of the trinity, and also transformed Jesus “the man – man’s redeemer”, “the advocate and the mediator of men” into an unreachable God, and substituted the spiritual baptism with the outdated water baptism, which was likened to a pagan religious “initiation”, adding to it the abomination of the heathen mysteries of the trinity, and making its followers to believe that the dead still alive, allowing demons to impersonate “the dead”, as in catholic churches, through religious images, etc… this are only few, among other many tricks, fully supported by God’s adversary, and introduced through philosophies of men, men lacking of holy spirit, men twice dead (deceivers that indeed are going to experience the second death, as Jude verses 12 and 19 clearly manifest).

We have seen that there exists in the Bible the powerful and clear evidence, given by God, against words inserted by men (that’s why wee need to be aware and acquainted with All the Bible and not only with just “one verse”), men whose purpose is to carry out their own theology, as we can read in the last words of Paul, John, Peter and Jude (Appendix 6). Even if under a “sincere principle of unity”, as Constantine desired, we know that “sincerity is no guarantee for truth”. It is our responsibility to read the Bible carefully to see the written truth and not being guided by doctrines designed by men to fulfill their private political agendas (historic example in Appendix 2 and tampering of God’s Word, which ended in thousands of born ag Christians being discriminated and/or martyred (in Appendix 3, decisions made by Theodosius I and by the Theophilus popes).

The Greek Christian Justin Martyr, who wrote in the middle of the second century, never quoted "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," nor did Aphraates (Aphrahat The Persian Sage) in the early fourth century, neither the great theologian Origen, nor Hermas the shepherd. This manifests that Eusebius in his Greek and Latin texts, Justin in his Greek texts, and Aphrahat in his Syriac texts, must have had earlier manuscripts without the added words (Appendix 1).

It was not difficult for Fourth Century scribes after the Nicene order to destroy genuine manuscripts and to retain the forged ones, changing the words "in my name" to "in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost", since the Godhead was gradually taking on a triune nature in their political-religious environment (Appendix 5 shows that as late as in 1520 A. D., catholic hands forged a MS to tamper also 1 John 5:7-8 for Erasmus’s "Textus Receptus", 3rd edition, damning the KJV even more by including it. If this forgery of 1 John 5:7-8 is a well known fact, why we don’t help everybody to see that a similar forgery was done earlier to tamper with Matthew 28:19, and with any other secular writing (at least, that was the evident attempt of the Athanasians, as we can see in the forged Ignatian epistles, in the forgery upon the anonymous Didache and upon many other documents (Appendix 3). Only by the grace of God it was left for us to see the truth in Mt. 28:19 from the original writings of Origen, Eusebius, Justin, Aphrahat, Hermas, and others still to discover)).

That the forgery of Biblical texts and of other earlier Christian writers was “the norm” with the full authorization of the Popes and of all catholic theologians of that time (and of to-day) can be seen in written words of the forgers themselves, words that have reached us, even in the midst of a strict and heinous “catholic censorship”, see for example Rufinus (who at the conclusion of his version of Origen’s Commentary on Romans boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”), by Jerome (who in his Preface to The Four Gospels of his Vulgate NT wrote, “Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will …call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books… which enable me to bear the odium-in the first place, [is that] the command is given by you [Pope Damasus, A.D. 383]”), by Basil “the Great” of Caesarea (that writes in his Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XXVIII “…passages… viewed with suspicion… really have quoted at length…”), and by many others, considered “saints” by the catholic church have been altered… fact of their having been tampered with… Those however which I [Basil] (Appendix 3).

* Additional Note Regarding Water Baptism: Water baptism is no longer necessary, since we now have the true baptism, which is the spiritual baptism in holy spirit, also called, “the receiving of power from on high” (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8), and “the gift of God” (Acts 2:38), and also, “the promise of our Father” (Acts 1:4). Christ told his disciples: “Acts 1:5: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” John the Baptist recognized that this spiritual baptism would be provided by Christ (Mt. 3:11) as did Priscilla and Aquila. Today (as Apollos or as Philip did then), many people still acknowledge the baptism of John (Acts 18:25) as the only baptism. However, now we need to expound unto them “the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26),” in the same way as Paul did, proclaiming the new birth, which is being born again of holy spirit, and not of water submersion or ablutions. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledged this simple truth: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:16). This greatly upset Cyprian (and others of his kind to-day), because water was no longer needed, neither it has ever been needed any trinitarian formula. Cyprian’s doctrines were just the philosophies of men’s imaginations (Appendix 3). Baptism today is to be born again, receiving holy spirit in the name of Christ Jesus, just as the Apostle Paul taught and performed, no longer using water, but through the spiritual new birth, the receiving of salvation, which is “Christ in us, the hope of the glory” (Col. 1:27).

---------------

Other word not present in older texts, and already corrected in almost all recent versions, can be found in:

1 Tim. 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.”

The word “God” still appears in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives.

The proper translation should read:

1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, which 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.”

Great is the Mystery of godliness, which [Mystery] was manifested in the flesh!

The Revised Version of 1885 gives “He who” in the text, and is rightly stated in the margin, “The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”.

Some ancient authorities read “which”. This is our belief. We believe that the original word was ho (0), “which”, in the neuter form, to agree with the word musterion, which is also neuter. Then, a scribe who, not understanding why it was in neuter, added an “S,” thus turning ho into hos (0?), which made it masculine, “who”, or “He who”, though with that change is thus made more obscure. Finally, some later scribe put a little mark in the “0,” thus making it into Th (?), and making the two letters ThS (??), an abbreviation of the word Theos (?e??), God (The “Englishman’s Greek New Testament” of Thomas Newberry (1877), and its revised form done by George Ricker Berry (1897) even expand the abbreviation to make it be as ?e?? without the support of the evidence of all manuscripts, even when they quote in a footnote: “0? , “who”, appears in Griesbach 1805, Lachmann 1842-50, Tischendorf 8th ed. 1865-72, Tregelles 1857-72, Alford 1862-71, and Wordsworth 1870”). A microscope reveals the fact that the little mark in the “0” in the Alexandrine MS (Codex A in the British Museum) is in different ink, and was evidently added by a later hand. This, we believe to be the corruption of the reading, and that originally it was simply “0,” which. The old Syriac and all the Older Latin Versions agree with this translation (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1803). “The Codex Claromontanus, Uncial 061, the Vulgate and Older Latin Manuscripts contain ho (0) rather than hos (0?)”. D and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun 0, “which”. That the 0?, ??, ?e?? reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading 0. B. M. Metzger notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports ?e??; no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading ?e??” (Textual Commentary, 574).

To see more Biblical details on this verse: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc2/mystery.htm

1 Tim. 3:16 is generally taken of Christ personal, but if read of the Body of Christ, which is his Church, then, in the six sentences of 1 Tim. 3:16 we have the whole truth concerning the Body of Christ that is now revealed on earth. The place occupied by the Revelation of the Mystery in 1 Tim. 3:16 (the “Mystery of Godliness”) will be best understood by the important position it occupies in contrast with the “Mystery of Iniquity” (1 Tim 4:1-12), as discussed in the link referred (Ethelbert W. Bullinger, The Mystery, Things to Come, part IV, Dec. 1895, 2(6):102-105).

[The Greek word “0 ”is translated correctly as the word “which” in the Latin Vulgate, in the James Murdock Translation of the Syriac Peshitta and in the Douay-Rheims; is translated as “that” in the French 1910 Louis Segond, and as “it” is (and the word “is” in present tense) in the 1933 Lamsa Translation from the Peshitta; the changed “0?” has been translated to “He who” in the Westcott-Hort Greek Critical Text, in the 1901 American Standard Version, in the New American Standard Bible, in J. B. Rotherham, in the 1949 Bible in Basic English, in The Living Oracles; “0?” as “He” in the NET Bible, in the International Standard Version, in the Revised Standard Version, in the Revised King James Version, in the New International Version, in the Common Edition, in the Twentieth Century, in The Message, in Good News, in God’s Word, in the Portuguese Joao Ferreira de Almeida, in the Spanish Reina Valera Actualizada and LBLA; “0?” as “who” in the Emphatic Diaglott, in the Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, as “that” (Christ) in the 1912 Weymouth translation, as “Christ” in the Contemporary English Version, in the New Living Translation, etc. None of these translations includes here the word “God”.]

On reading faithfully your Bible you can easily see that the “central mystery of the Christian faith”, is in reality the Mystery, and not “the trinity”. The Mystery revealed by God to us, the members of the body of Christ, is that when we confess Jesus Christ as our Lord, and when we believe that God raised him from the dead, then we are saved, then is Christ in us the hope of glory, then we have holy spirit within, and both Jews and Gentiles are fellow-heirs and members of the same Body of Christ, which is his Church.

The expression “God the Son” is never to be found in the Bible, nor the catholic creed expression “true God of true God”, neither “God incarnated”. However, the expression “Son of God” regarding Jesus Christ is found at least 68 times. God and Jesus Christ are one in purpose, and they want us to be one with them also:

John 17:20-23:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me”

Here the word “one” in Greek is “hen”, which is neuter, not a person, not masculine, and it is the same word “hen” translated also “one” in John 10:30, when Jesus said “I and my Father are one”, and by its context, being “one” is to be one in purpose and in will, Christ with God and we with them.

Jesus Christ stated that: “my Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28, 10:29). The Bible also states that “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3), and that “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Why don’t believe in the Bible only?

Remember that the key of our salvation is given in Rom. 10:9: “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Revised King James Version). It does not say, “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is God”.

In the book of Acts we can see time after time the same confession, that: “Jesus Christ is Lord”, as in the first preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,” and in his first preaching to the gentiles: “The word which God sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:).” Other examples can be found in Acts 4:33, 7:59, 8:16, 9:17,27,29, 11:17,20, 15:11,16, 16:31, 19:10,17, 20:21,24,35, 21:13, 28:31, and also in Acts 2:38, 3:6, 4:18, 5:40, 16:18, 1 Cor. 1:2, Philip. 2:9-11, etc. As stated before, you will never find the word trinity or any of the trinitarian formulas in the book of Acts or in any other book of the revealed Bible.

The testimony of God himself, when referring to Jesus is: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3:17, Mk. 1:11, Lk. 1:22 and 9:35), are we going to believe God Himself on this? The testimony of Jesus Christ, regarding who he is: “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Jn. 10:36), are we going to believe Jesus Christ’s testimony of who he is, as it was given by himself? On his testimony Jesus was confirming what his father had already expressed regarding who Jesus is. The testimony of John the Apostle, on giving the purpose of all his writings is: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30-31, 1 Jn. 5:13). John the Apostle is giving at the end of his book this beautiful summary, to don’t let anybody in any doubt or misunderstanding about the truth contained within everything that he wrote. God himself, and Jesus Christ, and John, and Peter, who by revelation had said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16), and the rest of the pure Biblical Scriptures, I ask, are all of them “blaspheming” because none of them says what the catholic religion says (Appendix 3), or what the Koran says (Appendix 4)? Jude Iscariot was one of the original Apostles and he betrayed Jesus Christ, Thomas Didymus was another, and he did not believed in the Word of God, until seeing. What about ourselves?

---------------

Another scripture deliberately changed, and corrected to its original form by almost all recent versions and translations, as it contains the only second “trinitarian formula” that was added by pro-Nicene hands, is:

1 John 5:7-8:

7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

These verses still appear in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives.

KJV verses 7 and 8 contain words that do not appear in any of the early manuscripts. The words added begin in verse 7 with "in heaven" and goes unto "in earth" in verse 8. These words are found in only four Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension (alteration) of the Latin Vulgate (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament, N.Y.: United Bible Societies, 1971, pp. 716-717). They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies, and from there they have crept into the text (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1876).

The earlier texts read as follows:

1 John 5:7-8:

“For there are three that bear record, _ the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

_ represents that none of the added words were originally present there.

[Added words never included in: 1881 Westcott and Hort, 1889 Darby Bible, German Luther Bible (Appendix 5, version available in the e-Sword Free Software), 1901 American Standard Version, 1912 Weymouth, 1949 Bible in Basic English, New American Standard Bible, The Common Edition, The Emphatic Diaglott, Majority Text, Living Oracles, Montgomery, New International Version, Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, Revised Standard Version, Revised King James New Testament, Twentieth Century, NET Bible, World English Bible, “Reina-Valera Actualizada,” this verse even is accurate in The Vulgate, etc.]

“Including more words was an attempt of a scribe or scribes to corrupt the original text with the theology propounded by Tertullian (early third century, the first person to use the word trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, devoting a treatise to it), Cyprian (third century), Athanasius (fourth century, the main influencer in the Nicene trinity), Hieronymus (Jerome, translator of The Vulgate, fifth century), Augustine (fifth century),” etc. (their writings, Appendix 3).

These practices “for the forgiveness of sins”, or as the later form took over, when baptizing even babies, “as a signature of pertaining to “the right” church”, using water “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”, replaced the original commandment given: to provide salvation and holy spirit to everyone who believes “in the name of Jesus Christ”.

The insertion within 1 John 5:7-8 was omitted completely by the English committee in the Revised Version of 1881-1885, and by the American committee in the American Standard Version of 1901. Yet both, the American and the British Bible Societies, knowing that the ancient texts and manuscripts do not substantiate the insertion, have continued to insert the error in the newer versions of the King James Version (KJV) as genuine Scripture. To print these verses for many years after it was known not to be true, is an immoral act with Scripture, and as such, it is sin. The mystery of the trinity is within the creeds of men, not in the Word of God. Why not just simply believe the truth of God’s Word? “Religious men” wants us to worship their own human thoughts consecrated as dogmas and not the true God! However, the seekers after the truth will sooner or later discover all the mistranslations, as well as all the forgeries on which the doctrine of the trinity has been based. Thinking people will not continue following leaders in whose honesty they have no confidence, those leaders who defile the Word of God and defile themselves. To say that Jesus Christ is God the Son is idolatry. To say: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, is truth.

The student is not told that the dogma of the trinity unified the roman church by persecution, it is concealed from him that Theodosius “the Great” (see Appendix 3 to read his statement and of his sanguinary character), in the latter part of the fourth century made, by force, the trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire; and at that time, there were not enough Trinitarians in the capital city of Constantinople on the first Sunday thereafter, to place, not even to one single trinitarian worshipper in each church building in the city. God’s revelation to men opens with God creating, and closes when “the Son, also himself being subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) [in Appendix 5 details on the history of the catholic insertion of trinitary words in 1 Jn. 5:7-8, words deceivingly retained today by “religious men”].

The Bible says, regarding those early (and of today) theologians, which with their personal aspirations took over the control of the “church” since its early days:

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Acts 20:29-31).

“This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain” (2 Tim. 1:15-16).

Etc… (more references can be found in Appendix 6).


By the end of the first century, the only apostolic procession was by these grievous wolves. In our search for truth, we must trust in the Scriptures themselves and not in the “church tradition” laid by grievous wolves in sheep’s clothing (Bill Powell, 1998, on his Online review of “The Names and Order of the Books of the Old Testament”, originally written by E. W. Bullinger in Things to Come in 1894, 1(6):110).

If Jesus Christ himself, or if his Apostles did not established an “official religious institution”, nor “official creed”, nor “dogmas”, nor “doctrines”, who are we to establish our own creeds, dogmas and doctrines? Or even worse, who are we to oppress and to obligate others to submit to us and to our own vain imaginations, through such creeds and dogmas? Notoriously, they are proven to be wrong when compared with the pure fountain of the living Word.

Enough is to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

This is the testimony of the Word of God regarding the invalidity of any kind of doctrines or dogmas, either from the law period or of any other of men’s imaginations in this age of grace, in this administration of the mystery revealed by God to us in his Word:

“Having abolished [Jesus Christ] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (dogmas); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Eph. 2:15).

“Blotting out [Jesus Christ] the handwriting of ordinances (dogmas) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14).

“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (dogmatidzo)? …” (Col. 2:20).

We are living today the Mystery revealed by God, the age of the grace of God!



Regarding doctrines not to be found in the original revelation of the Bible:

“He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men... ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mk. 7:6-9).

“Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein” (Heb. 13:9).

“Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (Col. 2:21-22).

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1Tim. 4:1).

God reminds us not to alter the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, all individuals or groups that have done so (willingly) are accursed (damn, reproved) according to God:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen” (Rev. 22:18-21).

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32).

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6).

------------------

APPENDIXES:

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5

APPENDIX 6

ANOTHER EXPERT QUOTATIONS

A Collection of Evidence, A. Ploughman and Randall Duane Hughes.

Biblical Unitarian.



Appendix 1:

Early writings, mainly “Ante-Nicene” (before the time of the trinitarian dogma), quoting accurately Matthew 28:19 and its immediate context (in bold the scripture and in italics its related meaning, as the writers understood it):

///////////

“…the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

Eusebius Pamphilus, “The Church History of Eusebius”, Book III, Chapter V, “The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ”.

[Eusebius Pamphilus was a disciple of Ammonius, Origen and of Pamphilus (see below in Jerome’s own words), so we can track and see that neither Origen had in his Bible versions those altered words in Matthew 28:19, and as we will see below, not even in his Commentary on Matthew]

///////////

“What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator, or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' He it was who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel must be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations…”

Eusebius Pamphilus, “Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine,” Chapter XVI.

[The comment of Schaff and Wace here is: “There is an interesting various reading here, where Eusebius, with B as against Aleph, adds something; but where B and others have “oun”, and D, and others have “nun”, Eusebius has “goun” “ (at the beginning, after the word Go, translated here by a comma (,). These first two can be found in the full documents Online at: (Look inside that site for the book:: NPNF2-01)]

///////////

“With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and He joined the effect to His Word”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book III, Chapter VI. “Against Those who think that the Christ of God was a Sorcerer”. [Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm]

“See how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, "can we do it?… "By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?"… But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME." For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of "In my Name." And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in my Name." ”

“I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man's, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: "Make disciples of all the nations in my Name." And when He said this He appended a promise, that would ensure their courage and readiness to devote themselves to carrying out His commands. For He said to them: "And lo! I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world." ”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book III, Chapter VII. “Oracles About Christ”. [Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm]

“And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' So, then, we that are the Gentiles know and receive the prophet that was foretold”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book IX, Chapter XI. “From Deuteronomy. Of the Lawgiving according to the Gospel of Christ. [Passage quoted, Deut. 18:15-19.] ”. [Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_11_book9.htm]

Theophania, Book III, 4.

[Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_theophania_04book3.htm]

“He (the Saviour) said in one word and enouncement to His Disciples, "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name, and teach ye them every thing that I have commanded you." And the deed He made to follow the word. For thence, every race of ///////////

“Who, of those that ever existed, is the mortal man, King, Philosopher, Lawgiver, or Prophet, whether Greek or Barbarian, who bore all this pre-eminence,--not after his death, but while he was still alive, and drew breath;-- and could effect so much, that he should be preached throughout the whole earth? and, that his name should fill the hearing, and tongues of every people upon the face of the whole earth ? But this, no man has done excepting our Saviour alone, who said to his disciples by word, and fulfilled it by deed: " Go and teach all nations." He said (also) to them,--what He had foretold and previously revealed,--that it was necessary His Gospel should be preached throughout the whole creation, for a testimony to all nations. And, with the word, He brought the deed also to pass: for, immediately,--and not at a great distance of time,--the whole creation was filled with His words!”

Eusebius Pamphilus, the Greeks and Barbarians became at once, and in a short space of time, (His) Disciples: The laws too of our Saviour were not written in any Book of His; but, without book, were disseminated at His command among all nations”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Theophania, Book V, 17.

[The note on Mt 28:19-20 given by the Editor D. D. Samuel Lee in 1843 is that it was “Cited evidently from memory”. In his next note, regarding Eusebius’ expression “without book”, Lee says: “Let it not be imagined that this favours the modern doctrines about unwritten tradition. The Apostles were,--be it remembered,-- divinely inspired expressly for this work, and for inditing those Scriptures which are the main sources of divine truth to the Christian Church. And, although Irenaeus (Lib. ii. cap. ii. p. 200. Edit. Grabe) speaks of Tradition not written, but delivered viva voce; it is evident enough, that he intends to ascribe to this no independent authority: for in the very same context he informs us, that the Heretics, against whom he was writing, were found, when opposing this Tradition, resisting the declarations also of the Scriptures. Ancient Tradition, when found accordant with the Scriptures, may indeed be relied on; but, it is from an examination of it by the Scriptures alone, that we can know it to be good”.]

“What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, '' Ye shall conquer in my name." For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): "In my name." Since it was by the power of His name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, "God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth." It is likely therefore, that He would shew forth the excellency of the unseen power, which was hidden from the many, by His name; and, (accordingly) He made the addition, "In my name." He thus accurately foretold moreover, something which should come to pass, (when) He said, "It is expedient that this my Gospel be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Theophania, Book V, 46.

“I am again compelled to recur to the question of (its) cause, and to confess, that they (the Disciples) could not otherwise have undertaken this enterprise, than by a Divine power which exceeds that of man, and by the assistance of Him who said to them, "Go, and make Disciples of all nations in my name." And, when He had said this to them, He attached to it the promise, by which they should be so encouraged, as readily to give themselves up to the things commanded. For He said to them, "Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world."”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Theophania, Book V, 49.

[Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_theophania_06book5.htm]

[Conybeare says, “Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day. If the Greek MSS there contained these words ["baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"], it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them” (Hibbert Journal, Frederick C. Conybeare, 1902)

///////////

“...the words recorded in Matthew as spoken by Christ when risen from the dead to His disciples who were being sent out to teach all nations, "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." To those who are to know all that human nature can know while it still is here, is said with emphasis, "I am with you;" add as the rise of each new day upon the field of contemplation brings more days before the eyes of the blessed, therefore He says, "All the days till the end of the world."

Origen's Commentary On The Gospel Of John: Tenth Book, 7. Why His Brothers Are Not Called To The Wedding; And Why He Abides At Capernaum Not Many Days.

"…"Lo, I am with you"… justice yet be done to the "I." He who is with His disciples who are sent out to teach all the nations, until the consummation..."

Origen's Commentary On The Gospel Of John: Tenth Book, 8. How Christ Abides With Believers To The End Of The Age, And Whether He Abides With Them After That Consummation.

///////////

“…And the Apostles on this account left Israel and did that which had been enjoined on them by the Saviour, "Make disciples of all the nations," and, "Ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and ill all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

Origen’s Commentary On Matthew: Book X. 18. Prophets In Their Country.

"...So long, then, as we have Jesus with us fulfilling the promise which runs, "Lo, I am with you always unto the consummation of the age," we cannot fast nor be in want of food, so that, because of want of it we should desire to take and eat the forbidden leaven..."

Origen’s Commentary On Matthew: Book XII, 6. The Meaning Of Leaven. Jesus' Knowledge Of The Heart.

[According to Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36) the Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew were written about the same time as the Contra Celsum, when Origen was over sixty years of age, and may therefore be probably assigned to the period 246-248. Of the twenty-five books into which the work was divided, the first nine, with the exception of two fragments, are lost; books x.-xvii, covering the portion from Mt. 13:36 to 22:33, are extant in the Greek, and the greater part of the remaining books survives in a Latin version, which is co-extensive with the Greek from book xii. 9 to book xvii. 36, and contains further, the exposition from Mt. 22:34 to 27:66. In Eusebius days, earlier MSS and Origen’s volumes on Matthew were at his hands, as we will read. “The Hibbert Journal notes that Origen quotes Matt.28:19 three times---ending the quote abruptly at "nations" each time and "that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'In my Name,' struck out." (Conybeare)”]

///////////

"And Jesus Himself, in raising the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of the Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of you." And of the same nature is His promise to His disciples: "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." "

Origen against Celsus, Book II, Chap. IX

“…for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, "Go and teach all nations."

Origen against Celsus, Book II, Chap. XXX.

“Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by which He conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world, and that His disciples should go among all nations and announce His doctrine; and, moreover, that they should be brought before governors and kings on no other account than because of His teaching; we are lost in wonder at Him, and have our faith in Him daily confirmed.”

Origen against Celsus, Book II, Chap. XLII.

///////////

1… “that they might gather together out of every race and every nation a multitude of devout believers in Himself.”

Origen De Principiis -- Book II. Chap. VI.--On The Incarnation Of Christ.

[Origen was an “early trinitarian”. In Rufinus’ Latin version of De Principiis, the only version that we have now, it is mentioned the word trinity at least 19 times, but not even once is there a mention of Mt. 28:19 as a proof for such trinity, nor in the section called “Summary (Of Doctrine) Regarding The Father, The Son, And The Holy Spirit, And The Other Topics Discussed In The Preceding Pages.” By the other side, all the times that he mentions “to teach every nation”, in relation to the last words of Christ before his ascension, he quotes them as in the need to be done in the name of Jesus Christ (“in Him”), but never in his writings mentions any trinitarian formula associated with Matthew. Origen’s work was harshly persecuted by the Theophilus popes, as you will see below (enough strange is to notice that only in “De Principiis” is the most notable “push” for the doctrines of the trinity within “Origen’s writings”. On reading Rufinus’ and Jerome’s letters, we can see that there was a later hand adding such trinitarian thoughts in the gospel of Matthew and in the book of Origen. That claim can also be substantiated by two of the main doctrinal points of rejection emphasized by the Alexander and the Theophilos popes against Origen, and by the anathemas against Origen’s writings in the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A. D.), as we will see below, tampered on by catholic censorship. Harnack acknowledges the participation of later hands on “retouching” older writings (see end of Appendix 3); but a faithful and a careful comparison of history and of documents, will help us to track back the truth, having the full Bible, not just the forged pieces, but rather, having the Biblical full contexts, its narrative on its historical developments, as described in the book of Acts, and all cumulative scriptures dealing with a similar subject, as our guide. It is the Bible our foremost foundation, together with the comparison of its ancient texts…)]

[Fred. C. Conybeare wrote: “If we could trust Rufinus’ versions of Origen’s homilies, we would have to admit that he used the Textus Receptus at Mt 28:19 and even set store by it. But we cannot trust them. At the conclusion of his version of the commentary on Romans Rufinus boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen” (see below rest of Rufinus’ in Latin). The text Mt 28:19 comes thrice in Rufinus’ version of the “Commentar in Romanos”, in V, 2 and 8; and VIII, 4. The last two passages smack of Rufinus rather than of Origen. No sane critic would undertake to say where Origen ends and Rufinus begins... it is only in Rufinus’ work that the text Mt 28:19 occurs” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 285). To see a detailed account on other forgery on the works of Origen, go to the end of our Quotations]

///////////

“For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ” (Chap. XXXIX, Direct Predictions By The Spirit).

"...our Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven, reigned; and by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him" (Chap. XLII.--Prophecy Using The Past Tense).

Justin Martyr: The First Apology Of Justin.

///////////

“God hath not yet afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.”

The same quotation in another version:

“God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men ['I have still seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal', God answered to Elijah], even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ.” (Chap. 39, p 258. (first paragraph) [Justin Describes His Studies In Philosophy (Chap. II) And Other Articles])

Other quotations:

“We, who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in God the Maker of all, have been stripped, through the name of His first-begotten Son, of the filthy garments, i.e., of our sins; and being vehemently inflamed by the word of His calling, we are the true high priestly race of God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles sacrifices are presented to Him well-pleasing and pure” (Chapter CXVI. It Is Shown How This Prophecy Suits The Christians).

“And that expression, 'binding his foal to the vine, and the ass's foal to the vine tendril,' (Gen. 49:11) was a declaring beforehand both of the works wrought by Him at His first advent, and also of that belief in Him which the nations would repose. For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them… For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths. Hence also we are strong in His faith and doctrine, since we have [this our] persuasion both from the prophets, and from those who throughout the world are seen to be worshippers of God in the name of that crucified one” (Chap. LIII - Jacob Predicted That Christ Would Ride On An Ass, And Zechariah Confirms It (p. 272))

“Every demon, when exorcised in the name of this very Son of God--who is the First-born of every creature, who became man by the Virgin, who suffered, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate by your nation, who died, who rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven--is overcome and subdued” (Chap. LXXXV - He Proves That Christ Is The Lord Of Hosts From Ps. XXIV, And From His Authority Over Demons)

Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew)

[The last two taken from the book “Justin: It Is Proved That This Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled And Other Articles”. Nowhere is to be found the word trinity or its formula in these writings, even within the growing tide of the imaginations of men surrounding the pure biblical scriptures. “This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional [trinitarian] text of Matthew 28:19” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics). These are only some examples, but we most notice that neither Clement of Alexandria quotes Mt. 28:19 in his own works “as preserved to us”]

///////////

“…Thus also the true Stone, our Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of all faith. And on Him, on (this) Stone faith is based. And resting on faith all the structure rises until it is completed. For it is the foundation that is the beginning of all the building. For when anyone is brought nigh unto faith, it is laid for him upon the Stone, that is our Lord Jesus Christ…And in that I have called Christ the Stone, I have not spoken my own thought, but the Prophets beforehand called Him the Stone…And again Daniel also spoke concerning this stone which is Christ. For he said: 'The stone was cut out from the mountain, not by hands, and it smote the image, and the whole earth was filled with it.' This he showed beforehand with regard to Christ that the whole earth shall be filled with Him. For lo! by the faith of Christ are all the ends of the earth filled, as David said: 'The sound of the Gospel of Christ has gone forth into all the earth.' And again when He sent forth His apostles He spake thus to them: 'Go forth, make disciples of all nations and they will believe on Me.' And again the Prophet Zechariah also prophesied about the stone which is Christ. For he said: 'I saw a chief stone of equality and of love.'…And again the Apostle has commented for us upon this building and upon the foundation; for he said thus: 'No man can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.'...”

Aphraates, Aphrahat The Persian Sage, Demonstrations, Demonstration I.--Of Faith (8)

[In: Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Vol XIII, Aphrahat, Select Demonstrations (Demonstration I.2-6, 8 ,13,19). Aphraates... wrote between 337 and 345. The words 'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me' appear to be a gloss of the Eusebian reading 'in my name.' But in any case, they preclude the Textus Receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts, this is impossible" (Conybeare)]

///////////

"The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century...dwells at length on 'the power in the name of Jesus invoked upon a man in baptism' "

[Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p 352, quoting De Rebaptismate 6.7]

///////////

Chap. XVII.

“Because, he [Hermas’ interlocutor] said, "all the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God" ”

Chap. XIV.

“The name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained, and supports the whole world. If, then, the whole creation is supported by the Son of God, what think ye of those who are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk in His commandments? do you see what kind of persons He supports? Those who bear His name with their whole heart. He Himself, accordingly, became a foundation to them, and supports them with joy, because they are not ashamed to bear His name”

Chap. XVI.

“Before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life… these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God”.

The Pastor: Book Third – Similitudes, Similitude Ninth. The Great Mysteries In The Building Of The Militant And Triumphant Church

[There is another translation of the same book called The Shepherd Of Hermas, Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. Nowhere in the context of the book III is to be found the word trinity or the Trinitarian formula, even within all other doctrinal deviations and imaginations of Hermas]

///////////

“…the apostles and teachers, who had preached the name of the Son of God…”

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: Book II, Chap. IX.--The Connection Of The Christian Virtues.

[notice the high similarity of this “Stromata” quotation with the last quote of Hermas]

----------------------

Matthew 28:19 is still quoted accurately even immediately after the Council of Nicaea (Nicoea, Nicea, (now Iznik, Turkey), a city of ancient Bithynia, in Asia Minor), and even if quoted by Trinitarians. In the next writings it is still not quoted in its “trinitarian formula”, even within such trinitarian disputations. Matthew 28:19 is not used as a “trinitarian proof” because it was not there at that time! So, historical evidence shows that the trinitarian adulteration was:

NOT YET IN ALL THE MANSUCRIPTS AT THAT TIME:

Four Discourses Against The Arians (Written Between 356 And 360 by Athanasius, see in Appendix 3 details of his character), Discourse IV: 26 - 36.

That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament. Texts from the Old Testament continued; especially Ps. cx. 3. Besides, the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old Testament is Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts x. 36; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor. i. 5. Lev. ix. 7. &c. Necessity of the Word's taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet without destroying, the flesh.

“32. For in the same way that John here preaches that incomprehensible union. 'the mortal being swallowed up of life,' nay, of Him who is Very Life (as the Lord said to Martha, 'I am the Life'), so when the blessed Peter says that through Jesus Christ the Word was sent, he implies the divine union also. For as when a man heard 'The Word became flesh,' he would not think that the Word ceased to be, which is absurd, as has been said before, so also hearing of the Word which has been united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery one and simple. More clearly however and indisputably than all reasoning does what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself, shew the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.' Irrationally then do the followers of the Samosatene separate the Word who is clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore sent through that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, 'Go ye, teach all nations.' ”

///////////

“…whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in divers lands in their stead, for he said to them, "Go, teach all nations." You, dear brethren, should observe that we have received a general command: for he wills that all of us should perform that office, which he Titus entrusted in common to all the Apostles. We must needs follow our predecessors. Let us all, then, undertake their labours, since we are the successors in their honour. And we shew forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught, beside which, according to the admonition of the Apostle, we are forbidden to add aught. For the office of keeping what is committed to our trust is no less dignified than that of handing it down.”

The Letter Of Pope Celestine To The Synod Of Ephesus. The Third Ecumenical Council--The Council Of Ephesus, A.D. 431, Emperors.--Theodosius II. And Valentinian III. Pope.--Celestine I.

[Extracts From The Acts. Session II.], (Labbe And Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., Col. 613. Also Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. L, Col. 505.(1))

///////////

Some “tracks” for the original truth can also be followed on reading early history:

“We believe in one almighty God and Father… and his Son Jesus Christ the Lord, our Saviour… there is no uncertainty about the Father being greater: it cannot be doubted by anyone that the Father is greater in honor, in dignity, in glory, in majesty, in the very name of “Father,” for he [Jesus Christ] himself witnesses… [that “He who sent me is greater than I”]” We outlaw the use of the terms homoousios (identity of essence, the same essence or substance, consubstantial, a doctrine formulated by Athanasius; in the Spanish catholic creed this lie appears as “consustancial” or “consubstancial” al Padre) and homoiousios (similarity of essence) to describe the Father’s relationship to the Son, because the concept of “essence” “is not included in the Divine Scriptures, and it is beyond man’s knowledge… and holy spirit “is through the Son” rather than being coequal with God”.

The Second Sirmian Creed, approved in Sirmium (357 A.D.)

[The Second Sirmian Creed was a trumpet which was heard from one end of the empire to the other”. However, “the Latin bishops were clearly resentful of their Greek colleagues’ tendency to treat them like uncultured” [as the Latin bishops really were]. References: Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 A.D., 1988, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, pp. 344-345. Rubenstein have replaced Hanson’s “declare” with the clearer term, “explain”. Note that the issue of the Father’s and Son’s birth-relationship is “genetic” (from the Greek gennetos) but not [necessarily] in the materialistic sense (see Bible references in Appendix 4); H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed., 1900, Cambridge University Press, p. 162; and R. E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, pp. 186-191, 253]

///////////

“Since the term essence (ousia) was adopted by the fathers [at Nicaea] without proper reflection [or “naively”] and, not being known by the people, causes offense because the Scriptures do not contain it; it has been resolved that it should be removed and that in future there should be no mention whatever of essence in regard to God, since the Divine Scriptures nowhere refer to essence [when speaking] about Father and Son…”

The Dated Creed, confirmed at Rimini-Seleucia, 359 A.D.

[at Seleucia (in Asia Minor) and at Rimini (on Italy’s Adriatic coast)], and at Constantinople, 360 A.D. The “Dated Creed” is so called because the committee of bishops took the unusual step of dating it: May 22, 359. The translation is found in Barnes T.D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, 1993, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 144. “Naively” is Hanson’s version (Search, 364) of Barnes’s “without proper reflection”; R. E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, pp. 75, 189, 253.]

[This was a more representative Council of the entire church than the Council of Nicaea, as was attended by more than 500 bishops from both East and West. If any meeting deserves the title “ecumenical,” that one seems to qualify; but its result – the adoption of an Arian creed – was later repudiated by the Catholic Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the “ecumenical” label but virtually disappeared from official church history, as also did the Second Sirmian Council (Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999)]

///////////

Book: “Testimonies Of The Ancients In Favor Of Eusebius”, from the book “On the Lights of the Church”.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, the key of the Scriptures and custodian of the New Testament, is proved by the Greeks to be greater than many in his treatises. There are three celebrated works of his which truly testify to this: the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical History, and the Chronicon, that is, a chronological summary. We have never found any one who has been able to follow in all his foot-prints."

///////////

Book “llustrious Men”, written by Jerome:

Chapter III.

MATTHEW, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

[Matthew wrote chiefly for Christians of Jewish origin. Much of the material peculiar to this Gospel is concerned with representing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The time of composition frequently suggested is sometime after AD 70, perhaps about AD 80 ("Matthew, Gospel According to," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)].

Chapter LV.

AMMONIUS, a talented man of great philosophical learning, was distinguished at Alexandria, at the same time. Among many and distinguished monuments of his genius, is the elaborate work which he composed On the harmony of Moses and Jesus, and the Gospel canons, which he worked out, and which Eusebius of Caesarea, afterwards followed. Porphyry falsely accused him of having become a heathen again, after being a Christian, but it is certain that he continued a Christian until the very end of his life.

[The first notable Harmony of the Gospels was integrated by Ammonius of Alexandria, the teacher of Origen, his work bears this title for the first time (Gk. Armonia). It appeared about A.D. 220, but has been lost. Until recently, it was supposed that the sections into which some early MSS divide the Gospels were those of Ammonius himself; but, while he did make such divisions, those bearing his name are to be attributed to Eusebius (see below). Ammonius made Matthew the basis of his work, and by his arrangement destroyed the continuity of the separate narratives. Corruptions in the received text of the Gospel of Mark are probably due to the confusion of the separate narratives occasioned by Tatian's Diatessaron (“the discovery of an Armenian translation of a commentary upon the Diatessaron, by Ephraem the Syrian, has enabled Zahn to reconstruct a large part of the text. The commentary was translated into Latin in 1841, but little attention was paid to it until an edition by Moesinger appeared in 1876”). Tregelles (in the new edition of Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 40) says that Tatian’s work “had more effect apparently in the text of the Gospels in use throughout the Church than all the designed falsifications of Marcion…” The Harmony of the Gospels, Introductory Essay, by Riddle M. B., on “Augustine’s Harmony Of The Gospels”]

Chapter LIV.

ORIGEN, surnamed Adamantius, a persecution having been raised against the Christians in the tenth year of Severus Pertinax, and his father Leonidas having received the crown of martyrdom for Christ, was left at the age of about seventeen, with his six brothers and widowed mother, in poverty, for their property had been confiscated because of confessing Christ. When only eighteen years old, he undertook the work of instructing the Catechetes in the scattered churches of Alexandria. Afterwards appointed by Demetrius, bishop of this city, successor to the presbyter Clement, he flourished many years. When he had already reached middle life, on account of the churches of Achaia, which were torn with many heresies, he was journeying to Athens, by way of Palestine, under the authority of an ecclesiastical letter, and having been ordained presbyter by Theoctistus and Alexander, bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem, he offended Demetrius, who was so wildly enraged at him that he wrote everywhere to injure his reputation. It is known that before he [Demetrius] went to Caesarea, he [Demetrius] had been at Rome, [with the] trader bishop Zephyrinus. Immediately on his [Demetrius] return to Alexandria he [Demetrius] made Heraclas the presbyter, who continued to wear his [Demetrius] philosopher's garb, [being] his [Demetrius] assistant in the school for catechetes. [So,] Heraclas became bishop of the church of Alexandria, after Demetrius. How great the glory of Origen was, appears from the fact that Firmilianus, bishop of Caesarea, with all the Cappadocian bishops, sought a visit from him, and entertained him for a long while. Sometime afterwards, going to Palestine to visit the holy places, he [Firmilianus] came to Caesarea and was instructed at length by Origen in the Holy Scriptures. It appears also from the fact that he [Origen] went to Antioch, on the request of Mammaea, mother of the Emperor Alexander, and a woman religiously disposed, and was there held in great honour, and sent letters to the Emperor Philip, who was the first among the Roman rulers, to become a Christian, and to his mother, letters which are still extant [at the time in which Jerome wrote this]. Who is there, who does not also know that he was so assiduous in the study of Holy Scriptures, that contrary to the spirit of his time, and of his people, he learned the Hebrew language, and taking the Septuagint translation, he gathered the other translations also in a single work, namely, that of Aquila, of Ponticus the Proselyte, and Theodotian the Ebonite, and Symmachus an adherent of the same sect who wrote commentaries also on the gospel according to Matthew, from which he tried to establish his doctrine. And besides these, a fifth, sixth, and seventh translation, which we also have from his library [in Jerome’s days, now lost], he sought out with great diligence, and compared with other editions. And since I have given a list of his works, in the volumes of letters which I have written to Paula, in a letter which I wrote against the works of Varro, I pass this by now, not failing however, to make mention of his immortal genius, how that he understood dialectics, as well as geometry, arithmetic, music, grammar, and rhetoric, and taught all the schools of philosophers, in such wise that he had also diligent students in secular literature, and lectured to them daily, and the crowds which flocked to him were marvellous. These, he received in the hope that through the instrumentality of this secular literature, he might establish them in the faith of Christ.

It is unnecessary to speak of the cruelty of that persecution which was raised against the Christians and under Decius, who was mad against the religion of Philip, whom he had slain,--the persecution in which Fabianus, bishop of the Roman church, perished at Rome, and Alexander and Babylas, Pontifs of the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, were imprisoned for their confession of Christ. If any one wishes to know what was done in regard to the position of Origen, he can clearly learn, first indeed from his own epistles, which after the persecution, were sent to different ones, and secondly, from the sixth book of the church history of Eusebius of Caesarea, and from his six volumes in behalf of the same Origen.

He lived until the time of Gallus and Volusianus, that is, until his sixty-ninth year, and died at Tyre, in which city he also was buried.

[“Visiting in Palestine in 216, Origen, a layperson, was invited by the bishop of Jerusalem and the bishop of Caesarea to lecture in the churches on the Scriptures. About 230, the same bishops ordained him a presbyter without consulting Origen's own bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria. Demetrius objected, and two synods were held at Alexandria, the first forbidding Origen to teach there and the second depriving him of his priesthood. Origen He taught the principle of the threefold sense, corresponding to the threefold division of the person into body, spirit, and soul, which was then a common concept, he taught also that the Son is subordinate to the Father in power and dignity” ("Origen," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)].

Chapter LXXV.

PAMPHILUS the presbyter, patron of Eusebius bishop of Caesarea, was so inflamed with love of sacred literature, that he transcribed him greater part of the works of Origen with his own hand and these are still preserved in the library at Caesarea. I have twenty-five volumes of Commentaries of Origen, written in his hand, On the twelve prophets which I hug and guard with such joy, that I deem myself to have the wealth of Croesus. And if it is such joy to have one epistle of a martyr how much more to have so many thousand lines which seem to me to be traced in his blood. He wrote an Apology for Origen before Eusebius had written his and was put to death at Caesarea in Palestine in the persecution of Maximinus. [Pamphilus had an extensive library, 1994, Microsoft Encarta].

Chapter LXXXI.

EUSEBIUS bishop of Caesarea in Palestine was diligent in the study of Divine Scriptures and with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent investigator of the Holy Bible. He published a great number of volumes among which are the following: Demonstrations of the Gospel twenty books, Preparations for the Gospel fifteen books, Theophany five books, Church history ten books, Chronicle of Universal history, and an Epitome of this last. Also On discrepancies between the Gospels, On Isaiah, ten books, also Against Porphyry, who was writing at that same time in Sicily as some think, twenty-five books, also one book of Topics, six books of Apology for Origen, three books On the life of Pamphilus, other brief works On the martyrs, exceedingly learned Commentaries on one hundred and fifty Psalms, and many others. He flourished chiefly in the reigns of Constantine the Great and Constantius. His surname Pamphilus arose from his friendship for Pamphilus the martyr.

[Eusebius of Caesarea (died A.D. 340) adopted a similar set of divisions for the gospels [like Ammonius’], adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions [“they appear as an appendix in the critical text of Nestle, clearly indicating that Matthew’s original manuscript of his gospel did not contained any trinitarian end”, Dr. Cruz]. The influence of this system seems to have been great, but Eusebius often accepts a parallelism where there is really none whatever. Some of the sections are very brief, containing only part of a verse [but this last observation also can be the original briefness and integrity of older texts from which Eusebius was quoting, as it is in the case of Mt. 28:19]… The work of Augustin comes next in order; it deals little with chronological questions, and shows no trace of such complete textual labour as that of Eusebius. The Reformation gave a new impulse to this department of Biblical study... But the undisputed reign of the Textus Receptus impeded investigation; the supernaturalism of the dominant theology was not favourable to historical investigation... The Harmony of the Gospels, Introductory Essay, by Riddle M. B., on “Augustine’s Harmony Of The Gospels”]

Chapter XCIV.

ASTERIUS, a philosopher of the Arian party, wrote, during the reign of Constantius, commentaries On the Epistle to the Romans, On the Gospels and On the Psalms, also many other works which are diligently read by those of his party.

Chapter XCVII

FORTUNATIANUS, an African by birth, bishop of Aquilia during the reign of Constantius, composed brief Commentaries on the gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style, and is held in detestation because, when Liberius bishop of Rome was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy.

Chapter XXXVI.

PANTAENUS, a philosopher of the stoic school, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the time of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, was of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, on the request of the legates of that nation, he was sent to India by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria, where he found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had preached the advent of the Lord Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew, and on his return to Alexandria he brought this with him written in Hebrew characters. Many of his commentaries on Holy Scripture are indeed extant, but his living voice was of still greater benefit to the churches. He taught in the reigns of the emperor Severus and Antoninus surnamed Caracalla.

Chapter XC.

THEODORUS, bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, published in the reign of the emperor Constantius commentaries On Matthew and John, On the Epistles and On the Psalter. These are written in a polished and clear style and show an excellent historical sense.

///////////

APHRAHAT

In citing the Old Testament, Aphrahat [Aphraates (Pharhad, Aphraatis) the Persian Sage, who is Jacob or “James the Wise”, Bishop of Mar Mathai] follows the Peshitto rather than the Greek, but not seldom departs from both; and he shows a knowledge of the Chaldee Paraphrase. In citing the Gospels, he seems sometimes to follow the Diatessaron, which was in the hands of his contemporary Ephraim, and which is known to have circulated largely in the East until far on in the following century. Sometimes, however, his references seem to be to the separate Gospels as commodity read. It cannot be claimed for the Peshitto that he always or even usually follows its text; nor yet does he uniformly agree with the Curetonian, or with the probably earlier form of the Syriac Gospel recently discovered by Mr. Lewis. With each of these last, however, his text has many points of coincidence. In the rest of the New Testament, we can only say that he must have had before him a text which diverged not seldom from the Peshitto. Aphrahat “Demonstrations” are 22 in number, after the number of the letters of the Syriac alphabet, each of them beginning with the letter to which it corresponds in order. The first ten form a group by themselves, and are somewhat earlier in date than those which follow: they deal with Christian graces, hopes, and duties, as appears from their titles… At the end of section 5 of his Demonstration V (Concerning Wars), Aphrahat reckons the years from the era of Alexander (B.C. 311) to the time of his writing as 648. He wrote therefore in A.D. 337-the year of the death of Constantine the Great. Demonstration XIV is formally dated in its last section, "in the month Shebat, in the year 655 (that is, A.D. 344). More fully, in closing the alphabetic series (XXII. 25) he informs us that the above dates apply to the two groups-the first ten being written in 337; the twelve that follow, in 344. Finally, the supplementary discourse "Concerning the Grape" was written (as stated in XXIII. 69) in July, 345. As a Persian, he dates his writings by the years of the reign of the Persian King: the twenty-two were completed (he says) in the thirty-fifth, the twenty-third in the thirty-sixth of the reign of Sapor. Thus, Aphrahat’s entire work was completed within nine years,-five years before the middle of the fourth century,-before the composition of the earliest work of Ephraim of which the date can be determined with certainty. It is clear also that, at whatever age or under whatever circumstances he embraced Christianity, Aphrahat must have taken the Christian Scriptures and Christian theology into his inmost heart and understanding as every page of his writings attests. The Bishop of Mar Mathai was Metropolitan of Nineveh, and ranked among the Bishops of “the East” only second to the Catholicus; and his province bordered on that which the Catholicus (as Metropolitan of Seleucia) held in his immediate jurisdiction. Aphrahat directed his 14th dissertation to “the Bishops, Priests and Deacons ... and all the people of God who are in Seleucia and Ctesiphon.” The monastery of Mar Mathai was on the eastern, that is, the Persian, side of the Tigris, not far from what once was Nineveh and is now Mosul, on the precipitous mountain Elpheph (now Maklob) where it still stands, though ruinous, and is known by the name of Sheikh Matta, and is occupied by the Metram (or Metropolitan) and a few monks. To the remoteness of Aphrahat see, and probably of the place of his obvious origin and abode, from the centres of religious thought and controversy, is probably due the notable absence from these discourses of all reference to the theological questions that had employed, and in his time were “engrossing”, the leading minds of Christendom. In an age of excited controversy, these quiet hortatory discourses, marked by no striking eloquence of style or subtlety of reasoning, dealing with no burning question of the time, nor with any disputes more recent than those of the two previous centuries. Among Syriac authors, the first to show an acquaintance with Aphrahat’s work, is Isaac of Antioch, known as “the Great” (disciple of Zenobius of Edessa) whose literary activity belongs to the first half of the fifth century. This Isaac knew and imitated the works of Aphrahat,as in Isaac’s works, passages have been pointed out which are evidently borrowed with slight change from Aphrahat’s Demonstrations. The imitation, however, is tacit, and Isaac nowhere names the work (or its author) whence he derived the illustrations and even the expressions he uses in treating of these topics. Oblivion so long covered the name of Aphrahat. [Aphrahat’s work], and provoked some prejudice which led to its practical suppression. It would be difficult, however, to point out anything in it to which exception could be so seriously taken as to be a bar to its acceptance. None of the errors which so keen a critic as Georgius detected in its theology—even if we admit the justice of his censure—is such as to shock the orthodoxy of the fourth or fifth century. Yet it is possible that theological prepossession may indirectly have brought about the disfavour or at least disuse into which the Demonstrations fell. In Edessa there was an institution known as the “School of the Persians”… the Persian and others were expelled from Edessa by Nonnus, an orthodox opponent and successor; and the school was finally closed by the next Bishop, Cyrus, in the reign of Zeno (who died 491). These facts may well be supposed to have raised a prejudice against all writings coming from a Persian source… It is probable that his [Aphrahat] writings were read in that “School of the Persians”, and that he himself may have studied them in early life. Prescribed in Edessa, the centre of Syriac theology, these discourses would be effectually checked in their circulation in all churches of Syriac-speaking Christendom that were anti-Nestorian. From and after the close of the fourth century “greater (i.e. Eastern) Armenia was ruled as a dependency of Persia, by Persian Kings.” Of these the earlier at least were Christians, and their policy led them to promote the Syriac language and literature, as against the Greek, among their people; until, under the Catholicus Isaac (d. 441), the Armenian tongue was reduced to writing (in the characters then invested by Mesrob), and a beginning made of an Armenian sacred literature by the translation of the Scriptures into Armenian from the Syriac. Aphrahat Syriac text, so long forgotten, was first discovered among the mss of the great Nitrian collection in the British Museum, by Dr. Cureton, whose name is so honourably known as a great Syriac scholar, and editor of Syriac documents. He did not live, however, to accomplish his desire of publishing it, but bequeathed that task to his still more eminent successor, in the leadership of Syriac studies in England, the late Dr. William Wright, then assistant keeper of mss in the British Museum, and afterwards Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge. To him is due the admirable “editio princeps” of the Syriac text of all the twenty-three Demonstrations (from the mss 14617 and 17182), issued in London, 1869.

[Schaff And Wace, Vol. XIII, A Select Library Of Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers Of The Christian Church, Second Series, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids]

///////////

ARIUS. A native of Libya who studied at the theological school of Lucian of Antioch. After he was ordained a priest in Alexandria, Arius became involved (319) in a controversy with his bishop Alexander concerning the divinity of Christ. Arius was finally exiled (325) to Illyria because of his beliefs, but debate over his doctrine soon engulfed the whole church and agitated it for more than half a century. Although his doctrine was eventually outlawed (379) throughout the Roman Empire by Emperor Theodosius I, it survived for two centuries longer among the barbarian tribes that had been converted to Christianity by Arian bishops. Arius taught that God is unbegotten and without beginning. The Son, because he is begotten, cannot be God in the same sense that the Father is, Jesus did not exist from all eternity, he is a creature, tough much more perfect that any other creature, and exists by the will of the Father. The teaching of Arius was condemned in 325 at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea. The bishops assembled there drafted a creed which stated that the Son of God was “begotten not made,” and consubstantial (Greek homoousios, “of the same substance”, formulated by Athanasius) with the Father. Previously, no creed had been universally accepted by all churches. The status of the new creed as dogma was confirmed by bans against the teaching of Arius. Despite its condemnation, the teaching of Arius did not die. Under the influence of the Greek church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, whose orthodoxy had also been questioned, Emperor Constantine I recalled Arius from exile about 334. Soon after, two influential people came to the support of Arianism: The next emperor, Constantius II, was attracted to the Arian doctrine; the bishop and theologian Eusebius of Nicomedia, later patriarch of Constantinople, become an Arian leader. By 359 Arianism had prevailed and was the official faith of the empire. The semi-Arians consisted mostly of conservative eastern bishops, who basically agreed with the Nicene Creed but were hesitant about the unscriptural term homoousios (consubstantial) used in the creed. The neo-Arians said that the Son was of a different essence (Greek heteroousios) from, or unlike (Greek anomoios), the Father. With the death of Constantius II, in 361; and the reign of Valens who persecuted the semi-Arians, the way was opened for the final victory of Nicene orthodoxy, recognized by Emperor Theodosius in 379 and reaffirmed at the second ecumenical council (Constantinople) held in 381 ("Arianism," and ‘Athanasius,’1994, Microsoft Encarta).

“Arius, a priest of about sixty, had been born in Libya, in the area of the Five Cities. In 314, shortly after becoming bishop, Alexander had licensed him to preach at a church in the Baucalis district near the Great Harbor and to look after the district’s residents. The tall, slender, gray-haired man was a famous speaker, or perhaps, one should say, singer, since he was in the habit of putting his theology into poetry and chanting it to his enraptured congregants. According to the bishop, his talent for vivid imagery and music had become part of the problem. Arius had recently written a long poem called Thalia – The Banquet – in a rhythmic meter ordinarily used for popular ballads. It was already chanted in port cities all around the eastern Mediterranean. Popular songs, like grain and news, traveled quickly by sea. In his youth, Arius had studied Christian theology with the famous teacher and martyr, Lucian of Antioch. Before the Great Persecution, he had come to Alexandria to pursue a religious vocation, and he had reportedly behaved bravely, during the terror, offering priestly services to parishioners and to Christians held in prison at considerable risk of himself. When Bishop Peter fled the city, he remained behind…Arius had been a successful minister. He was greatly admired for his personal purity as well as for his preaching and was a particular favorite of the sailors, dockworkers, and young women who flocked his church. The church’s sodality of virgins…protested in public when he was ordered to leave the city by Bishop Alexander. And since his departure, the priest’s partisans among the young men had clashed incessantly with Alexander’s supporters” (Rubenstein, R. E., When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, pp. 52-53).

Next is our version of an excerpt on Arius’ poem,

THALIA

…The Father made the Son,

A beginning of things He made on earth.

The Father was,

The Son was not before he came to pass.

The Father and His Son,

Both have a different glory.

One equal to the Son

The Father yes, can make,

One equal to Himself

The Father is not able.

And at his Father’s will, the Son is what he is.

The Father is the higher,

As He is which He is: The Father!

The Father knows the Son,

The Son knows not

All that the Father knows…

[We include next other fragments of the Thalia, as quoted by Athanasius, Sozomen and by Socrates Scolasticus, no doubt biased. An Athanasus’ excerpt appeared in his Oration Against the Arians, published by Quasten, Patrology, 12. In Rubenstein’s quotation of the Thalia he replaced several antique Athanasian words with modern synonyms, and changed the order of the quotations for clarity. “Since Arius’ writings were lost or destroyed, the accounts of his teachings are based on reports by others – most of them his theological enemies”, When Jesus Became God, pp. 55, 245 (notes 53 and 57)]

Four Discourses Against The Arians, written by Athanasius between 356 And 360 A. D.:

Chapter II. Extracts From The Thalia Of Arius.

Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God's foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation; foreign in essence from the Father...

5. Now the commencement of Arius's Thalia… runs thus:--

'According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones,

Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit receiving,

Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,

Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.

Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions.

I the very famous, the much suffering for God's glory;

And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.'

And…:--'God was not always a Father; but 'once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.' 'The Son was not always;' for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was 'made out of nothing,' and 'once He was not,' and 'He was not before His origination,' but He as others 'had an origin of creation.' 'For God,' he says, was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.' Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. 'For Wisdom,' saith he, 'by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.' In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace… there are many powers; one of which is God's own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers… is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the 'great power.' The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, 'The Lord of hosts' or 'powers.' And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For 'therefore,' saith he, 'as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known, did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.'

6. Moreover he [Arius] has dared to say, that 'the Word is not the very God'… He is not very God,' but 'by participation of grace...' And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is 'the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these…

Chapter III. The Importance Of The Subject. Arianism...[affirms that Jesus] is a creature with a beginning... The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their tenets.

8. …The use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in their [Arius’ et al] opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language…

9. …what have these persons to shew us from the infamous Thalia ?...

10. …if He [Jesus] be… God from God… is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out… that Arian Thalia ?…

De Synodis -- Councils Of Ariminum And Seleucia Written by Athanasius, 359 A. D., added to after 361 A. D.:

Part II. History Of Arian Opinions.

Arius's own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander; corrections by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius; letter of the Council of Jerusalem; first Creed of Arians at the Dedication of Antioch; second, Lucian's on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius; fourth, sent to Constans in Gaul; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Italy; sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as given above in 8 (“the term 'essence,' has been adopted by the Fathers in simplicity, and gives offence as being misconceived by the people, and is not contained in the Scriptures, it has seemed good to remove it, that it be never in any case used of God again, because the divine Scriptures nowhere use it of Father and Son”); ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople; eleventh, at Antioch.

15. Arius and those with him thought and professed thus: 'God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son; Word of God is one of the creatures;' and 'Once He was not;' and 'He is alterable; capable, when it is His Will, of altering.' Accordingly they were expelled from the Church by the blessed Alexander. However, after his expulsion, when he was with Eusebius and his fellows, he drew up his heresy upon paper, and imitating in the Thalia no grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades [Sotadus], in the dissolute tone of his metre, he writes at great length, for instance as follows:--

Blasphemies of Arius.

God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men. Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory. And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate by nature. We praise Him as without beginning because of Him who has a beginning. And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time has come to be. The Unbegun made the Son a beginning of things originated; and advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption. He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence. For He is not equal, no, nor one in essence with Him. Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom. There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings; both to things which are through the Son, and to the Son He is invisible. I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible; by that power by which God sees, and in His own measure, the Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful… One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. Foreign from the Son in essence is the Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that the Monad was; but the Dyad was not, before it was in existence. It follows at once that, though the Sire [Son] was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-begotten... Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God… Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light. One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to beget; but one more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able. At God's will the Son is what and whatsoever He is. And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted from God… To speak in brief, God is ineffable to His Son. For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable... being Son, he really existed, at the will of the Father…

De Decretis Or Defense Of The Nicene Definition, Chapter IV, written by Athanasius between 346 and his flight in 356:

… when they are beaten hence, and like Eusebius and his fellows, are in these great straits, then they have this remaining plea, which Arius too in ballads, and in his own Thalia, fabled…

Ad Episcopos Aegypti Et Libyae, Epistola Encyclica, written by Athanasius (A.D. 356), addressed to the bishops of his Province after his expulsion by Syrianus (Feb. 8, 356), Chapter II. 20. While they are friends of Arius, in vain their moderate words:

…Had the opinions they have put in writing been orthodox, they would have expunged from their list of books the Thalia of Arius…

The Ecclesiastical History Of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus [Sozomen], Book I:

[The work before us seems to have been commenced about the year 443. It embraces a period of 117 years; namely, from A.D. 323 to A.D. 439. It is generally admitted to have suffered many alterations and mutilations]

Chapter XXI. -- What The Council Determined About Arius [The Council Convened At Nicaea On Account Of Arius, according to Chap. XVII]; The Condemnation Of His Followers; His Writings Are To Be Burnt; Certain Of The High Priests Differ From The Council...

…The council excommunicated Arius and his adherents, and prohibited his entering Alexandria. The words in which his opinions were couched were likewise condemned, as also a work entitled "Thalia," which he had written on the subject. I have not read this book, but I understand that it is of a loose character, resembling in license Sotadus.

The Ecclesiastical History, By Socrates Scholasticus, Book I:

Chapter IX. The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation of Arius and those who agreed with him.

…It should be observed moreover that Arius had written a treatise on his own opinion which he entitled Thalia: but the character of the book is loose and dissolute, similar in its style and metres to the songs of Sotades. This production also the Synod condemned at the same time…

///////////

JUSTIN MARTYR (circa 100-circa 165), philosopher, theologian, and one of the earliest apologists of the Christian church, who sought to reconcile Christian doctrine and pagan culture. He was born in Flavia Neapolis (now Nabulus, West Bank), a Roman city built on the site of the ancient Shechem, in Samaria. His parents were pagans. As a young man Justin devoted himself to the study of Greek philosophy, notably the writings of Plato and the Stoic philosophers. His study of the Old and New Testaments caused him to convert to Christianity, and thereafter he strove by his teachings and writings to bring others to the truths he had discovered. Justin was beheaded during the reign of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius because he refused to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods. The books that are ascribed to him with certainty are the two Apologies for the Christians, which comprise an erudite defense of Christians against charges of atheism and sedition in the Roman state, and the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which professes to be the record of an actual discussion at Ephesus. His writings are valuable for the information they give about the 2nd-century Christian church (Justin Martyr, 1994, Microsoft Encarta, Funk & Wagnall's Corporation).

///////////

TATIAN’S DIATESSARON, by Dr. Ethelbert W. Bullinger (Things to Come, 1(2):30-31, 1894)

“Tatian…(A.D. 110-180, was a pupil of Justin Martyr who lived by 114 to 165 A.D.) compiled… about the year 130 to 150 A. D… [a work that until quite recently was supposed to be lost]… the Diatessaron… [which] means, through four, i.e., one through four (is the technical term in music for the interval of the fourth. Tessares means four. In music, through four notes; just as diapason means through all, i.e., all eight notes, and was used of the octave). In English idiom it would be represented by our word “Harmony,” when we speak of “a harmony of the four gospels,” i.e., one produced by means of the four…” In Tatian’s work An Address to Greeks he writes that he was an “initiate” of the ancient “mysteries,” but that he was shocked by “demons” instigating to the perpetration of evil, “retiring”, he says, “by myself, I sought how I might be able to discover the truth; and while I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings [the books of the Hebrew Old Testament. How wondrous thus to hear of the power of God’s Word!] too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors; and I was led to put faith in these by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed by future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centered in one Being; and my soul being taught of God, I discerned that the former class of writings [the Greek philosophies and mythologies] lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants.” His address concludes thus “These things, O Greeks, I Tatian… have composed for you. I was born in the land of the Assyrians, having been first instructed in your doctrines, and afterwards in those which I now undertake to proclaim. Henceforward, knowing who God is, and what is His work, I present myself to you prepared for an examination concerning my doctrines, while I adhere immoveably to that mode of life which is according to God” [the names of other works of Tatian have come down to us; e.g., A Book of Problems (explaining what seemed obscure in the Old Testament), Of Perfection According to the Saviour, On Animals, A Collection of the Epistles of St. Paul (some eleven “fragments” of these, as preserved in quotations by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and others, are given in vol. xlii of T. and T. Clark’s Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp. 46-48)] Tatian was received into the church of Rome, dying at Edessa. Eusebius (A.D. 325) in his Ecc. History (iv. 29) speaks of the Diatessaron, though he had not seen it. Epiphanius in his work on Heresies (about 374 A. D.) says, “The Diatessaron Gospel is said to have been composed by Tatian, which some call according to the Hebrews” (Cap. xlvi. I). Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, near the Euphrates, about 420 A.D., speaks of having collected and put away some 200 copies of the Diatessaron, replacing them by [newer] copies of the four evangelists. It was doubtless written in Syriac and therefore inaccessible to Greek and Latin churches, while it was being used in the Syrian Churches to the exclusion of the separate gospels… In the Vatican Library is an Arabic MS numbered xiv. But no one knew anything of it until 1883, when Agostino Ciasca, one of the Guild of Writers to the Vatican, examined it and published an essay on it in Paris, entitled, On the Arabic Version of Tatian’s Diatessaron. Still the MS itself remained in Arabic, untranslated. In 1886 Ciasca happened to show the MS to Antonio Moreos, Visitor Apostolic to the Catholic Copts, who said he had seen one like it in Egypt, and could obtain it for him. In August, 1886, the promised MS arrived in Rome, evidently a copy of the same work as “MS xiv.” This MS Ciasca selected for translation, and in 1888 he published a Latin Translation of it in honour of the Pope’s Jubilee. The latter MS distinctly states that it was translated from the Syriac into Arabic. This must have been before 1043 A.D., as the translator, Abû-l-Faraj, died in that year. Tatian’s work has been translated into English with a valuable and elaborate introduction and appendix by the Rev. J. Hamlyn Hill, B.D., and published by T. and T. Clark. Mr. Hill concludes by saying “has been a subject of interest to Christians of every age since it was first written, around which so many controversies have revolved, which has been in its entirety so singularly recovered in our own day, which throws so much light upon the information possessed by Christians of the second century, and which at the same time possesses a national interest” (an account of the Diatessaron has been written by the Pastor William Elliot of Plymouth, entitled Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Modern Critics)”.

///////////

Book: “The Life Of The Blessed Emperor Constantine”, by Eusebius Pamphilus,

Book IV, Chapter XXXIV.

That he wrote to Eusebius respecting Easter, and respecting Copies of the Holy Scriptures.

EVER careful for the welfare of the churches of God, the emperor addressed me personally in a letter on the means of providing copies of the inspired oracles, and also on the subject of the most holy feast of Easter.

Chapter XXXVI.

Constantine' s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures.

"Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus [Constantinus Augustus, the great and the victorious], to Eusebius.

"It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour [God the Saviour], that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name [which bears our name]. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also he increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies [volumes] of the sacred Scriptures [of the Holy Scriptures], the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the [congregation of the] Church, to be written on prepared [fine] parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form [handy], by professional [skilled] transcribers [calligraphers] thoroughly practiced in their art. The catholicus (procurator, financial agent) of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible [within a short space of time]. You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your church may be intrusted with this service [Appoint one of the deacons of your church to take charge of this part of the business], who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality [he shall receive proofs of our benevolence]. God preserve you, beloved brother!"

Chapter XXXVII.

How the Copies were provided.

SUCH were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. This fact is attested by another letter, which the emperor wrote in acknowledgment, in which, having heard that the city Constantia in our country, the inhabitants of which had been more than commonly devoted to superstition, had been impelled by a sense of religion to abandon their past idolatry, he testified his joy, and approval of their conduct.

[The letter on Chapter 36 also appeared in the book “Testimonies Of The Ancients In Favor Of Eusebius”, in which the word “catholicus” is translated “procurator”, and in the book “The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus, Book I, Chapter 9”, in which the word “catholicus” is translated as “financial agent”, and also in the book: “The Ecclesiastical History Of Theodoret”, Book I, Chapter XV, The Epistle of Constantine concerning the preparation of copies of the Holy Scriptures. (Theodoret’s translations are merged in Eusebius’ text using brackets [ ] )]

///////////

Book: “The Life And Writings Of Eusebius Of Caesarea”. Chapter II. The Writings Of Eusebius.

V. Critical And Exegetical Works.

Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Pr'f. in librum Paralip.) that Eusebius and Pamphilus published a number of copies of Origen's edition of the LXX., that is, of the fifth column of the Hexapla… These editions of the LXX. must have been issued before the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, and in all probability before 307, when he was imprisoned (see Lardner's Credibility, Part II. chap. 72.

In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the publication of copies of the Scriptures. According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare fifty sumptuous copies of the Scriptures for use in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The commission was carefully executed, and the MSS prepared at great cost. It has been thought that among our extant MSS may be some of these copies which were produced under Eusebius' supervision, but this is extremely improbable (see Lightfoot, p. 334)

Ten Evangelical Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus prefixed (kanones deka; Canones decem harmoniae evangeliorum pr'missa ad Carpianum epistola). Ammonius of Alexandria, early in the third century had constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in which, taking Matthew as the standard, he placed alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages from the three others. Eusebius' work was suggested by this Harmony, as he tells us in his epistle to Carpianus. An inconvenient feature of Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel of Matthew could be read continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels being broken in order to bring their parallel sections into the order followed by Matthew. Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect, constructed his work on a different principle. He made a table of ten canons, each containing a list of passages as follows: Canon I. passages common to all four Gospels; II. those common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; III. those common to Matt, Luke, and John; IV. those common to Matt., Mark, and John; V. those common to Matthew and Luke; VI. those common to Matt. and Mark; VII. those common to Matt. and John; VIII. those common to Luke and Mark; IX. those common to Luke and John; X. those peculiar to each Gospel: first to Matthew, second to Mark, third to Luke, and fourth to John… It has indeed never been superseded, and the sections and canons are still indicated in the margins of many of our best Greek Testaments (e.g., in those of Tregelles and of Tischendorf)… For further particulars in regard to them, see Lightfoot’s article on Eusebius, p. 334 sq., and Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2d ed. p. 54 sq. The canons, with the letter to Carpianus prefixed, are given to Migne, Opera, IV. 1275–1292.

Gospel Questions and Solutions. This work consists of two parts, or of two separate works combined. The first bears the title Gospel Questions and Solutions addressed to Stephanus (pro “Stefanon peri twn en euaggelioi” zhthmatwn kai lusewn), and is referred to by Eusebius in his Dem. Evang. VII. 3, as Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of our Saviour (twn ei “thn genealogian tou swthro” hmwn zhthmatwn kai lusewn). The second part is entitled Gospel Questions and Solutions addressed to Marinus (pro Marinon). The first work consisted of two books, we learn from the opening of the second work. In that passage, referring to the previous work, Eusebius says that having discussed there the difficulties which beset the beginning of the Gospels, he will now proceed to consider questions concerning the latter part of them, the intermediate portions being omitted. He thus seems to regard the two works as in a sense forming parts of one whole. In his de vir ill. 81, Jerome mentions among the writings of Eusebius one On the Discrepancy of the Gospels (De Evangeliorum Diaphonia), and in his Comm. in Matt. chap. I. vers. 16, he refers to Eusebius’ libri diafwnia euaggeliwn. Ebedjesu also remarks, “Eusebius Caesariensis composuit librum solutionis contradictionum evangelii.” In the sixteenth century there were found in Sicily, according to the announcement of Latino Latini, “libri tres Eusebii Caesariensis de Evangeliorum diaphonia,” but nothing more has been heard or seen of this Sicilian ms. There can be no doubt that the work referred to under the title De Evangeliorum Diaphonia is identical with the Gospel Questions and Solutions, for the discrepancies in the Gospels occupy a considerable space in the Questions and Solutions as we have it, and the word diafwnia occurs frequently. The three books mentioned by Latino Latini were therefore the two books addressed to Stephanus which Eusebius himself refers to, and the one book addressed to Marinus. The complete work is no longer extant, but an epitome of it was discovered and published by Mai, together with numerous fragments of the unabridged work, two of them in Syriac (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 217 sq.; reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 879–1016). In the epitome the work addressed to Stephanus consists of sixteen chapters, and the division into two books is not retained. The work addressed to Marinus consists of only four chapters. The work purports to have been written in answer to questions and difficulties suggested by Stephanus and Marinus, who are addressed by Eusebius in terms of affection and respect. The first work devoted chiefly to a discussion of the genealogies of Christ, as given by Matthew and Luke; the second work deals with the apparent discrepancies between the accounts of the resurrection as given by the different evangelists. Eusebius does not always reach a solution of the difficulties, but his work is suggestive and interesting. The question as to the date of the work is complicated by the fact that there is in the Dem. Evang. VII. 3 a reference to the Questions and Solutions addressed to Stephanus, while in the epitome of the latter work (Quaest. VII. §7) there is a distinct reference to the Demonstratio Evang. This can be satisfactorily explained only by supposing, with Lightfoot, that the Epitome was made at a later date than the original work, and that then Eusebius inserted this reference to the Demonstratio. We are thus led to assume two editions of this work, as of the others of Eusebius’ writings, the second edition being a revised abridgement of the first. The first edition, at least of the Qeaestions ad Stephanum, must have been published before the Demonstratio Evangelica. We cannot fix the date of the epitome, nor of the Quaestiones ad Marinum..

Commentary on Luke (ei to kata Loukan euallelion). This work is no longer extant, but considerable fragments of it exist and have been published by Mai (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 159 sq.; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 529–606). Although the fragments are all drawn from Catenae on Luke, there are many passages which seem to have been taken from a commentary on Matthew (see notes of the editor). A number of extracts from the work are found in Eusebius’ Theophania (see Mai’s introduction to his fragments of the latter work).

The date of the commentary cannot be fixed with certainty, but I am inclined to place it before the persecution of Diocletian, for the reason that there appears in the work, so far as I have discovered, no hint of a persecution, although the passages expounded offer many opportunities for such a reference, which it is difficult to see how the author could have avoided making if a persecution were in progress while he was writing; and further, because in discussing Christ’s prophecies of victory and dominion over the whole world, no reference is made to the triumph gained by the Church in the victories of Constantine. A confirmation of this early date may be found in the extreme simplicity of the exegesis, which displays neither the wide learning, nor the profound study that mark the commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah.

Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This work is no longer extant, and we know of it only from a reference in Jerome’s Ep. ad Pammachium, §3 (Migne’s ed. Ep. 49): “Origenes, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius Caesariensis, Didymus, Apollinaris latissime hanc Epistolam interpretati sunt.

“Eusebius’ apology in five books for Origen's teachings is now lost. Eusebius was averse to discussing “the nature of the trinity” and preferred the simple language of the Scriptures to “the subtleties of metaphysical distinctions” ["Eusebius of Caesarea," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation”]

///////////

“First Book Against Eusebius of Caesarea's “Apology for Origen” ”, Antipater, Bishop of Bostra:

"Since now, this man was very learned, having searched out and traced back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers, and having set forth the opinions of almost all of them… Eusebius would not have chosen to take this view, unless he had accurately ascertained that all the opinions of the ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very learned, and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter."

"Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that there were only nine persons out of all whom the decrees of the Synod did not please, and that their names are as follows: Theognis of Nica (Nic'a), Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemaïs, which borders upon Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica."

"I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the doctrines; wherefore he ought to be given place to so far as regards his great learning, but as regards his knowledge of doctrine he ought not. "

///////////

Book: “The Ecclesiastical History Of Theodoret”, Book I, Chapter IV.

The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia.

[Arius,] To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, [who is] unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all-conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord. Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethren for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us… Eusebius your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son... But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten... before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not... We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning... And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being... [Arius friends mentioned were: Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregorius of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda. Lydda is now called Diospolis. Arius adversaries were: Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus, of Tripolis, and Macarius, of Jerusalem… enemies which claimed that the Son is eternal, existing before all ages, of equal honour and of the same substance with the Father. All the works of Arius were destroyed by catholic censorship; all that we know of Arius is mainly because of the written comments against them, by his adversaries]

///////////

From the “Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre” (given by Theodoret in his “Eccles. Hist.” I. 6).

"Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning the truth, nor thy silence in this matter been unknown, but has reached even us. And, as was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced on account of my lord Eusebius; but on the other, we are grieved on thy account, since we look upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our cause."

///////////

Book: “The Church History Of Eusebius”, Book VI.

Origen, who is highly honored... For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius, who had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway conformed to the life required by the laws. Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and unadulterated to the end of his life. His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left. For example, the work entitled The Harmony of Moses and Jesus, and such others as are in the possession of the learned (Chapter XIX, Circumstances related of Origen). There flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible. They have been kept until our time in the library at AElia, which was established by Alexander, who at that time presided over that church. We have been able to gather from that library material for our present work. Among these Beryllus has left us, besides letters and treatises, various elegant works. He was bishop of Bostra in Arabia (Chapter XX, The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age). It may be well to add that in the sixth book of his exposition of the Gospel of John he states that he prepared the first five while in Alexandria. Of his work on the entire Gospel [of John] only twenty-two volumes have come down to us… He wrote also the books De Principiis before leaving Alexandria; and the discourses entitled Stromata (Chapter XXIV, The Commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria). While Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Caesarea, many pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other countries. Among these Theodorus, the same that was distinguished among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory, and his brother Athenodorus… Remaining with him five years, they made such progress in divine things, that although they were still young, both of them were honored with a bishopric in the churches of Pontus (Chapter XXX, The Pupils of Origen). Beryllus, whom we mentioned recently as bishop of Bostra in Arabia, turned aside from the ecclesiastical standard... He dared to assert that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of being of his own before his abode among men, and that he does not possess a divinity of his own, but only that of the Father dwelling in him. There are still extant writings of Beryllus and of the synod held on his account, which contain the questions put to him by Origen, and the discussions which were carried on in his parish, as well as all the things done at that time (Chapter XXXIII, The Error of Beryllus). At this time, as the faith extended and our doctrine was proclaimed boldly before all, Origen, being, as they say, over sixty years old, and having gained great facility by his long practice, very properly permitted his public discourses to be taken down by stenographers, a thing which he had never before allowed. He also at this time composed a work of eight books in answer to that entitled True Discourse, which had been written against us by Celsus the Epicurean, and the twenty-five books on the Gospel of Matthew... We have arranged in distinct books to the number of one hundred, so that they might be no longer scattered, as many of these as we have been able to collect, which have been preserved here and there by different persons (Chapter XXXVI, Other Works of Origen). About the same time others arose in Arabia... They said that during the present time the human soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the resurrection they will be renewed together (Chapter XXXVII, The Dissension of the Arabians).

///////////

“[It took me] much trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”

[Conclusion of Rufinus’ version of Origen’s Commentary on Romans. And Rufinus’ boast continues, in Latin: “laborem adimplendi quae deerant… ne pulsatae quaestiones et relictae, quod in homiletico dicendi genere ab illo fieri solet, latino lectori fastidium generarent”. In Origen’s Hom. viii, § 4 in Exodum, as rendered by Rufinus, comes his fourth reference to the altered Mt 28:19 inserted in the works of Origen, as given by Rufinus in Latin: “Cum ergo uenimus ad gratiam baptismi, uniuersis aliis diis et dominis renuntiantes, Solum confitemur Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Sed hoc confitentes, nisi toto corde diligamus Dominum Deum nostrum… non sumus effecti pars Domini… et Dominum, ad quem confugimus, propitium non efficimus, quem non ex toto et integro corde diligimus.” Why is “Dominum” alone mentioned, if just before the trine formula had stood in the original Greek? The commentary awakes this suspicion in us. “Vix certo distingui potest, ubi solus Origenes loquatur, aut ubi suas merces obtrudat Rufinus”, says De la Rue (monitum in Exodum). Thus, it is only in Rufinus’ work that the text Mt 28, 19 occurs; in three cases embedded in comment which smacks of him rather than of Origen, while in the other two the trine formula is in no way necessitated by the context (Conybeare, F. C., Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 285)]

///////////

Book: “Letters Of Jerome”

The books of Origen have been read before a council of bishops and unanimously condemned. The following are his chief errors, mainly found in the periArkpn (that is, “of Principles” or “of Powers”, according to Rufinus)… 2. Christ's kingdom will one day come to an end. 3. We ought to pray to the Father alone, not to the Son. I implore you to oppose them wherever they come, and to prevent them from unsettling the brethren committed to you (Letter XCII. The Synodical Letter Of [Pope] Theophilus To The Bishops Of Palestine And Of Cyprus).

Theophilus informs Jerome that he has expelled the Origenists from the monasteries of Nitria, and urges him to shew his zeal for the faith by writing against the prevalent heresy. The date of the letter is 400 A.D. ...It is our desire, if possible, to guard in our days not only the Catholic faith and the rules of the church, but the people committed to our charge, and to give a quietus to all strange doctrines (Letter LXXXVII. From Theophilus To Jerome).

By universal consent Origen himself may be expressly condemned and also the infamous heresy of which he was the author. I have learned that certain calumniators of the true faith, named Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, filled with a fresh access of enthusiasm in behalf of the heresy, have taken ship for Constantinople, to ensnare with their deceits as many new converts as they can… (Letter XC. From Theophilus To Epiphanius).

Does any one wish to praise Origen Let him praise him as I do. From his childhood he was a great man, and truly a martyr's son. At Alexandria he presided over the school of the church, succeeding a man of great learning, the presbyter Clement… He knew the scriptures by heart and laboured hard day and night to explain their meaning. He delivered in church more than a thousand sermons, and published innumerable commentaries which he called tomes…. Which of us can read all that he has written? and who can fail to mire his enthusiasm for the scriptures?… overcoming my scruples, I have taken up my pen against a man whose ability I once eulogized. I would sooner, indeed, risk my reputation… My friends have placed me in the awkward dilemma that if I say nothing I shall be held guilty, and if I offer a defence I shall be accounted an enemy. Both alternatives are hard; but of the two I will choose that which is the least so... I leave to your judgment to discover how much labour I have expended in translating the books On First Principles; for on the one hand if one alters anything from the Greek the work becomes less a version than a perversion… ( Letter LXXXIV. To Pammachius And Oceanus).

At the request of Theophilus Anastasius, bishop of Rome, writes to Simplicianus, bishop of Milan, to inform him that he, like Theophilus, has condemned Origen whose blasphemies have been brought under his notice... If Origen has put forth any other writings, you are to know that they and their author are alike condemned by me (Letter XCV. From Pope Anastasius To Simplicianus).

See, Pope Theophilus is freely allowed to prove Origen a heretic; and the disciples do not defend the master's words. They merely pretend that they have been altered by heretics and tampered with, like the works of many other writers. Thus they seek to maintain his cause not by their own belief but by other people's errors (Letter XCVII. To Pammachius And Marcella) [It is noteworthy Jerome’s unqualified eulogium upon Origen, which contrasts strongly with the tone adopted by the writer in subsequent years (see, e.g., Letter XXXIII, To Paula. Vs. Letter LXXXIV)]

7. He [John of Jerusalem] charges me [Jerome] with having translated Origen into Latin. In this I do not stand alone for the confessor Hilary [of Poitiers] has done the same, and we are both at one in this that while we have rendered all that is useful, we have cut away all that was harmful… For, while I have always allowed to Origen his great merit as an interpreter and critic of the scriptures, I have invariably denied the truth of his doctrines… As for the six thousand volumes of Origen of which he speaks… (Letter LXXXII. To Theophilus Bishop Of Alexandria.)

A letter from Augustine in which he… urges Jerome to base his scriptural labours not on the Hebrew text but on the version of the LXX. The date of the letter is 403 A.D. (Letter CIV. From Augustine).

///////////

Book: “Rufinus' Apology (The Apology of Rufinus), Book II”

Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius.

Written at Aquileia A.D. 400

9 (2). He [Jerome] condemns as heathenish unobjectionable views which he himself holds ...in accordance with the character of the Trinity, which is good and simple and unchangeable...

21. Contrast of Jerome's earlier and later attitude towards Origen.

23… since that letter contains certain more secret matters, I do not wish to see it published before the right time; and therefore I will corroborate what I say by other proofs similar to it. In the meantime let this be counted as demonstrated by what I have said above, that he [Jerome] extols Origen's writings as in every way admirable, and declares that 'if he translates them, the Roman tongue will then recognize what a store of good it had hitherto been ignorant of and now has begun to understand,' that is the twenty six books on Matthew, the five on Luke, and the thirty two on John. These are the books to which he [Jerome] gives the highest honour; and in these absolutely everything is to be found which is contained in the books on Peri `Arkwn the groundwork of his charges against me, only set forth with greater breadth and fulness. If then he promises that he will translate these, why does he condemn me for a similar course?

25. You observe how he [Jerome] treats Ambrose. First, he [Jerome] calls him a crow and says that he is black all over... [however] you [Jerome] had been accused of plagiarizing from Origen. And you did not deny it, but said: "What they bring against me in violent abuse I accept as the highest praise; for I wish to imitate the man whom we and all who are wise admire." Your plagiarisms redound to your highest praise; those of others make them crows and jackdaws in your estimation.

27 a. But I [Rufinus] followed his [Jerome’s] method of translation [Jerome’s method of forgery] ...in certain places where you [Jerome] found things relating to the faith, that is the Trinity, expressed in a strange manner, you left out words at your discretion. This mode of translation we have both of us observed [Jerome and Rufinus]...

28. But if any one blame me [Rufinus] for having translated anything at all of Origen's, then I say that I am the last of many who have done the deed, and the blame, if any, should begin with the first. But does any one ever punish a deed the doing of which he had not previously forbidden. We did what was permissible. If there is to be a new law, it holds good only for the future. But it may be said that the works themselves [Rufinus’ tampering the works of Origen, without the same "art" as Jerome, specifically “De Principiis”] ought to be condemned and their author [Rufinus] as well. If that be so, what is to happen to the other author who writes the same things [Jerome], as I have shewn most fully above?

35. Danger of altering the Versions of Scripture... Is it not evident, how greatly the grounds for the heathens' unbelief have been increased by this proceeding?… They know that our law [the Vulgate version of the New Testament and of the Old Testament versus the Septuagint, as Rufinus presents three examples of Septuagint (LXX) inserted adulterations to the Book of Daniel: “Susanna... not true, the boy Daniel... a mistake, the Hymn of the three children... false” (all that was not present in Hebrew older MSS was called “apocrypha” and rejected by Jerome, however, those forged documents still present in all catholic versions: Baruch, Wisdom, Tobias, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, the adulterous insertions to the Books of Daniel and Esther, the extra books of Esdras, etc…): “”] has been amended, or at least changed… [Jerome wrote that] "The ears of simple men among the Latins ought not after four hundred years to be molested by the sound of new doctrines"...

37. But suppose that you had reason to be offended at the fact that, in my translation of Origen, I passed over some things which appeared to me unedifying in point of doctrine--though in this I only did what you [Jerome] had done. Possibly I was deserving of blame and correction for this. You [Jerome] say that some of the brethren sent letters to you demanding that the faults of the translator [Rufinus] should be pointed out [see below].

45. The point turns upon a statement in my Preface, where I said of him [Jerome] who is now my persecutor and accuser that in the works or Origen which he [Jerome] translated there are found certain grounds of offence in the Greek, but that he has in his translation so cleared them away that the Latin reader will find nothing in them which is dissonant from our faith.

45... Why my translations of Origen had created offence, but Jerome's not?

46. ... [but] the doctrine he [Jerome] has expressed about the Trinity; namely, that the two Seraphim are the Son and the Holy Ghost, from which especially the charge of blasphemy is drawn [by Rufinus against Jerome]...”

47. A Synod, if called on to condemn Origen, must condemn Jerome also... it has been of no advantage to Origen that yon [Jerome] have praised him, so it will be of no profit to you that I [Rufinus] have pleaded in your behalf. I shall then be bound to follow the judgment of the Catholic Church whether it is given against the books of Origen or against yours.

///////////

Book: “Letters Of Jerome”

Letter LXXX. From Rufinus To Macarius.

1.His style [Jerome’s] is certainly attractive but I can see that he aims at a more ambitious task than that of a mere translator. Not content with rendering the words of Origen he desires to be himself [Jerome] the teacher. I [Rufinus] for my part do but follow up an enterprise which he has sanctioned and commenced, but I lack his [Jerome’s] vigorous eloquence with which to adorn the sayings of this great man [Origen].

Letter LXXXIII, From Pammachius And Oceanus.

1. Pammachius and Oceanus to the presbyter Jerome, health.

A reverend brother has brought to us sheets containing a certain person's translation [Rufinus] into Latin of a treatise by Origen--entitled periarkpn [De Principiis]…. with a view of clearing the author [Origen], many passages of his books have been removed which had they been left would have plainly proved the irreligious character of his teaching. We therefore request your excellency to be so good as to bestow upon this particular matter an attention which will benefit not only ourselves but all who reside in the city; we ask you to publish in your own language [Latin] the abovementioned book of Origen exactly as it was brought out by the author himself; and we desire you to make evident the interpolations which his defender [Rufinus] has introduced... The writer [Rufinus] in the preface to his work has, with much subtlety but without mentioning your holiness's name [Jerome], implied that he has done no more than complete a work which you had yourself [Jerome] promised, thus indirectly suggesting that you agree with him. Remove then the suspicions, men cannot help feeling, and confute your assailant [Rufinus]; for, if you ignore his implications, people will say that you [Jerome] admit their truth.

[The translation to Latin of Origen’s book periarkpn [De Principiis]…. was also made at the request of Macarius and its greater part is known to us only through those Latin translations. Besides this, translations of Origen's “Seven Homilies on Matthew and one on John”, and of his treatises on Mary Magdalen and on Christ's Epiphany have at times been attributed to Rufinus]

///////////

Prefaces to Jerome's Early Works.

Prefaces to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament. The Four Gospels.

Addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383.

You urge me to revise the old Latin version… Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language, and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein?… which enable me to bear the odium-in the first place, the command is given by you who are the supreme bishop… the New Testament… was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies… I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labours of the Seventy… to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are [in Latin].

[When Augustin expressed to Jerome his gratitude for 'his translation of the Gospels,' he tacitly corrected him by substituting for this phrase 'the correction of the New Testament.' Yet, although he proposed to himself this limited object, the various forms of corruption which had been introduced were, as he describes, so numerous that the difference of the old and revised (Hieronymian) text is throughout clear and striking." Jerome’s New Testament version was made at Rome between the years 382 and 385. The Vulgate Version of the Old Testament was not undertaken with ecclesiastical sanction, as was the case with the Gospels, but at the request of private friends, or from Jerome's "own sense of the imperious necessity of the work." It was wholly made at Bethlehem, and was begun about A.D. 391, and finished about A.D. 404.Lucian in Syria and Hesychius in Egypt attempted their recensions about the middle of the third century, the time when Origen also began to labour in the same direction. Lucian's recension, also called the Constantinopolitan, and to which the Slavonian and Gothic versions belong, spread over Asia Minor and Thrace. See the Preface to the Chronicles. It was decreed by a council held under Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494, that "the Gospels which Lucian and Hesychius falsified are apocryphal."]

///////////

Preface to Jerome’s Translation of Origen on St. Luke.

Addressed to Paula and Eustochium, A.D. 388.

A few days ago you told me that you had read some commentaries on Matthew and Luke, of which one was equally dull in perception and expression, the other frivolous in expression, sleepy in sense. Accordingly you requested me to translate, without regarding such rubbish, our Adamantius' [Origen’s nickname] thirty-nine "homilies" on Luke, just as they are found in the original Greek; I replied that it was an irksome task and a mental torment to write, as Cicero phrases it, with another man's heart not one's own; but yet I will undertake it, as your requests reach no higher than this. The demand which the sainted Blesilla once made, at Rome, that I should translate into our language his [Origen’s] twenty-five volumes on Matthew, five on Luke, and thirty-two on John is beyond my powers, my leisure, and my energy…

///////////

Book: “The Ecclesiastical History”, by Socrates Scholasticus, Book II, Chapter VII.

“The Emperor Constantius II, son of Constantine the Great, ejects Paul after his Election to the Bishopric, and sending for Eusebius of Nicomedia, invests him with the Bishopric of Constantinople.”

[Eusebius of Nicomedia Studied in Antakya or Antioch (Turkey)].

///////////

“Anathemas Against Origen… VIII. If anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, [is] of the same substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was made flesh and became man, one of the Trinity… let him be anathema.”

Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A. D. (convened by the Emperor Justinian 1 and by the Pope Vigilius)

///////////

Baptism… perhaps more simply “in the name of Christ,” has been from the beginning the means of initiation into Christianity ("Christianity," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

ETC…

References taken mainly from: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/RTF

------------------

To go to the main text: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/in-my-name.htm



Appendix 2:

Historical details:

“In the fourth century Eusebius was asked by the Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of the New Testament on fine vellum. None can be found today – most likely, they have been altered, mutilated, lost or destroyed. No manuscript from previous centuries has been found, as all extant manuscripts, the oldest dating from the fourth century, have been altered by scribes which deliberately inserted "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in place of the original "in my name." ” (Appendix 1 to read about those fifty copies).

“During the persecution of the second century, a small group of Christian intellectuals, most prominent of whom were Aristides the philosopher and Justin Martyr, wrote dissertations to emperors and other notable persons to defend the gospel, to stop the persecution and to answer the charges against them. These dissertations, called “Apologies”, were, in fact, compromises between Christianity and paganism. Thus, from the apologetic period on, because of the impact the Apologies had, the concepts of the triune God, plus Mary as the mother of God [deceivingly canonized as “We confess that our Lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined”, in The Second Council Of Nice. A.D. 787, previously seen in the spurious document “The Divine Liturgy Of James, The Holy Apostle And Brother Of The Lord” as “Thou who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who didst submit for our salvation to become flesh of the holy God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary; who didst immutably become man and wast crucified, O Christ our God and didst by Thy death tread death under foot; who art one of the Holy Trinity glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit…”] and pagan symbolism, took root and began growing in discussion and in writing” (by the way, we don’t need to “apologize” to anybody because we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it is God’s Word which says so, not my feeble pen!).

“The attempts at suppressing the early Church by the Roman government ended when Constantine, the Roman emperor, gained power after his victory at the Milvian Bridge in 312 A.D. After Constantine's conversion to Christianity he issued an edict at Milan, which granted Christians the same rights as the followers of other religions had, as well as restitution of the wrongs done to Christians (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, rev. ed., N.Y.: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959, p. 101). Constantine soon began to grant special favors to Christians, so many made conversion to Christianity as a ticket to political, military, and social promotion. Thousands of non-Christians began joining the Church for political favors. In return for granting special favors and acting with leniency, Constantine insisted that he have a strong voice in Church affairs.”

“It was at Constantine's peak of power, early in that fourth century, that the idea of Jesus Christ's being co-equal with God the Father began to gain a wide base of support. Yet Trinitarianism at that point was not an established doctrine.”

The heathen idea of a triune God stirred (and still does) great controversy within the Church, as there were still many clergy and laymen who did not believe in that rare “position” of Christ as being God himself, “the great question that had generated the controversy over Jesus’ divinity remained – and remains yet –” (Richard E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, p. 231, see Appendix 4 for a Biblical evaluation of the conclusion of his book).

“The disagreement about the position of Christ reached its most noted level in the confrontation between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt, and his presbyter Arius. Bishop Alexander taught that Jesus was equal to God, however Arius did not. So, at a synod held at Alexandria in 321, Arius was deposed and excommunicated (Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, Ch. 4, p. 84; Hase, A History of the Christian Church, p. 111). Arius, although now in institutional disfavor, still had much support outside of Egypt. Many of the important bishops such as the learned historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, and his powerful namesake, Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, theologically agreed with Arius, they saw by the scriptures that Jesus Christ is not God. Constantine, disturbed over the sustained controversy in his empire, sent his ecclesiastical adviser Ossius, Bishop of Cordova (Hosius of Cordova, president of the Council of Nicaea, Constantine’s earliest “Christian” advisor), to Alexandria on a mission of reconciliation and inquiry. After visiting Alexandria, Ossius sided with Alexander against Arius. Ossius returned to Rome and there persuaded Constantine to embrace Alexander's position (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968, p. 129.)”

“To legitimatize his position, Constantine invited all bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea (which is now in Asia Minor) in May 325 A.D. Thus, the Council of Nicaea began with its main goal being to settle the dispute over the relationship between God and His Son. The council consisted of approximately 220 bishops who were almost exclusively from the Occident. Constantine, who was in control of the proceedings, used his political power to bring pressure to bear on the bishops to accept his theological position. The creed they signed was clearly anti-Arian; in other words, the Nicene Creed embraced the Son as co-equal with God. Two hundred eighteen of the 220 bishops signed this creed, although it was truly the work of a minority (Henry Bettenson. ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., London: Oxford University Press, 1963, in p. 58 says: "Arius and his followers were forthwith banished to Illyria and his works were burned. The reverberations of this treatment of Arius had a profound effect on the Church, as well as on Constantine, for several decades. Just when Arius was to have been pardoned by Constantine, and to be reinstated in the Church, he died.")

Constantine himself actively guided the discussion, and personally proposed (no doubt on Ossius' prompting), the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by that council: "of one substance with the Father." Over-awed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them against their inclination. At that moment Constantine regarded the decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one dared openly to challenge the Creed of Nicaea, but the expected concord did not follow (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, s.v. "Council of Nicaea.")

“Although the Nicene Creed had been accepted by the council of bishops, there still remained great dissension among many of the clergy about the deity of Jesus Christ. So, in the year 381 A.D. a second ecumenical council met in Constantinople (B.K. Kuiper, The Church in History, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, p. 128). This council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed stating that Jesus and God were co-equal and co-eternal, and also declared the deity of the Holy Spirit.”

The doctrine of the trinity was then fully established and thus became the cornerstone of the Catholic, wrongfully called also “the cornerstone of the “Christian faith” ” for the next fifteen centuries.

Bettenson says also, that at the Council of Nicaea: “Eusebius of Cesarea, the historian, suggested the adoption of the creed of his own church… But as it did not deal explicitly with the Arian position… It was taken only as a base (by Athanasius and by Hosius), and put forward by the council in its next “revised” form”:

The Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.): "We believe in one God the Father All sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those that say ‘There was when he was not,’ and, ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’ or those that allege, that the son of God is ‘Of another substance or essence,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable,’ these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes."

(The Council of Constantinople of 381 defined the Holy Spirit as consubstantial and coeternal with the Father and with the Son in “the divine trinity”).

Betterson then explains some of the anachronisms within the so called ‘Nicene’ Creed as follows: “[It was] found in Epiphanius' of Salamis, Ancoratus (374 A.D.), and extracted by scholars (as it was found also in Eusebius of Caesarea) almost word for word from the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem (~315-387 A. D.), and then was read and approved at Chalcedon (451 A. D.), as the “original” creed of ‘(the 200 or 318? fathers who met at Nicaea and that of) the 150 who met at a later time’ (i.e. at Constantinople, 381 A.D.). Hence, often called the Constantinopolitan or Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed, and thought by many to be a revision of the creed of Jerusalem held by Cyril” (of the 178 words in the original of this second “Nicene Creed,” only 33 are positively taken from the creed of AD 325. This second creed is received as ecumenical by the Eastern and Roman communions and by the majority of the Reformed churches.):

The ‘Nicene’ Creed says (or its ‘version’ of 451 A.D., as is still recited inside Catholic churches, as a history’s ‘living witness’): "We believe in one God the Father all sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceedeth from the Father, who with Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spake through the prophets. In one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come."

("Filioque", a novel combination of Latin words meaning “and from the Son,” was added to the Nicene Creed by the Third Council of Toledo in 589, and refers to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as emanating from the Father and from the Son, an issue added to the great schism).

Nothing is said in this “creed” about our salvation by grace in Christ Jesus’ name, or of our new birth, neither nothing is said of the Mystery of Jews and Gentiles being made members of the same body of Christ and fellow-heirs, nor of the power of holy spirit within us with his nine manifestations and its fruit made by nine segments, etc...

[Nicene: Of or relating to Nicaea or Nice, an ancient city of Asia Minor in which a “confession of faith” was formulated and decreed by the First Council of Nicaea in A. D. 325 in opposition to Arianism and reaffirmed by the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 or to one of the later forms of this confession (p. 1525, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, vol. II, 1981)]

“Historians of Church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a trinity was not a part of the Bible (see end of Appendix 3). “The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So, how then did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in the late first, second, and third centuries, as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices. Trinitarianism then was confirmed at Nicaea in 325 by Church bishops out of political expediency. Its reaffirmation was thereafter needed and received at Constantinople in 381 A. D. Since that time the "God-in-three-persons" doctrine has been adhered to as though it were a divine revelation.” But, if we have eyes to see, we can see by the Biblical Texts themselves, and even by the records of history, a very different picture (V. P. Wierwille and Ronald G. Webster, in the book “Jesus Christ is Not God, 1981, pp. 11-27”).

“A handful of Western churchmen came to the Council of Nicaea. The eastern predominance can be attributed to the westerners’ lack of interest in the Arian controversy, which still seemed to most of them an obscure “Greek” matter. But it also reflected the great size, strength, and vitality of Eastern Christianity – one reason that Constantine had decided to locate his new capital in Asia Minor”.

“Constantine, who considered himself an acute judge of character, was often swayed by the apparent sincerity, intelligence, and depth of feelings of someone seeking his favor. If Arius, for example, seemed sincerely repentant and desirous of living at peace with his brother priests, Constantine might not worry that his views were somewhat at variance with the Nicene Creed. Arius had a genuine devotion to Christ and the Church, as was his desire to live at peace with other Christians, even if he and they differed in matters of doctrine”.

The council of Nicomedia (328 A.D.) readmitted solemnly Arius and Euzoius to communion. “Little more than two years after the Council of Nicaea ended, its most significant practical decisions were thus overturned. The apparent consensus reached at the Council Nicaea was, in large part, an illusion produced by the bishops’ desire to please the emperor and to restore the unity of the Church. A false consensus may be more productive of conflict than an honest disagreement. By other side, Athanasius, losing patience with the fifty assembled bishops which were conferring day and night in an effort to elect a new metropolitan bishop for Alexandria, convinced a few of them to go with him to the church of Dionysius and consecrate him bishop behind closed doors. (The Council of Nicaea had designated three bishops as the minimum number who could consecrate, provided that the candidate also received the written consent of the other bishops.) Using his considerable political influence, Athanasius obtained a decree of the Alexandria City council characterizing his election as the people’s choice, and sent it to Constantine with a letter alleging that he had received the consent of the Alexandrian bishops. Constantine accepted Athanasius’ claim without further investigation, and wrote the city officially approving his appointment. But the emperor was mistaken if he thought that this would bring peace to the city. Athanasius, the new bishop, younger than the legal 30 years old for the task, embarked on a tour of his domains, reorganizing the Egyptian clergy so as to put his own supporters in key positions”.

Arius was officially readmitted to communion, but Alexander, Athanasius and Macarius… rejected him. Constantine was to use his full authority in support of Arius…but Arius died just one day before the official ceremony of reacceptance to the church… Arius was an old man, “probably in his seventies; he would not have been the first person his age to die of an intestinal aliment, or, possibly, of a heart attack brought on by the combination of illness and the tension of awaiting one of the most important days in his life. Still, poison was the murder weapon of choice for many Roman intriguers, and from the point of view of Arius’ enemies, one could hardly imagine a more urgent or convenient time for murder than the eve of Arius’ triumph. A whisper of poison drifts about the event, captured by some of the literature on Arius’ death, although the only direct evidence for it is the timing and manner of his passing”. Few months later, Constantine himself died, and so, the Athanasian violence increased, being opposed later, only by Constantius, the faithful son of Constantine… Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of Christianity, 1984, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, p. 528, Rubenstein, R.E., When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, pp. 75, 102-106, 126-137, 169-191.

“In 312, on the eve of a battle against Maxentius, his rival in Italy, Constantine is reported to have dreamed that Christ appeared to him and told him to inscribe the first two letters of his name (XP in Greek) on the shields of his troops. The next day he is said to have seen a cross superimposed on the sun and the words “in this sign you will be the victor” (usually given in Latin, “in hoc signo vinces”). Constantine then defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, near Rome. The Senate hailed the victor as savior of the Roman people. Thus, Constantine, who had been a pagan solar worshiper, now looked upon Christ as a bringer of victory. Persecution of the Christians was ended, and Constantine's co-emperor, Licinius, joined him in issuing the Edict of Milan (313), which mandated toleration of Christians in the Roman Empire. As guardian of Constantine's favored religion, the church was then given legal rights and large financial donations. Constantine intervened in ecclesiastical affairs to achieve unity; he presided over the first ecumenical council of the church at Nicaea in 325. He also began the building of Constantinople in 326 on the site of ancient Greek Byzantium (present-day Istanbul, which remained the capital of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire until 1453). The city was completed in 330 (later expanded). In addition, Constantine built churches in the Holy Land. The emperor was baptized shortly before his death, on May 22, 337.As the first emperor to rule in the name of Christ, he was a major figure in the foundation of medieval Christian Europe”. "Constantine the Great," 1994, Microsoft Encarta.

ETC…

--------------------------------------

To go to the main text: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/in-my-name.htm



Appendix 3:

E. W. Bullinger wrote, in his last published answer:

“Scripture is the only court of appeal, and no doctrine can be accepted on the authority of the best of men, if it contradicts the oracles of God. The chief interest of the works of the early church fathers is in showing how soon Paul’s warnings were realized, and what a gulf exists between their writings and the inspired teaching of the New Testament. To pass from the epistles of Paul to those of Clement even, is like leaving the pure invigorating air of the mountain top for the mists and fogs of the valley” (Things to Come, Question No. 423, 1915, 21(12):143).

Let’s see some writings of the early promoters of the doctrine of the trinity within the believers in the Bible, proposed initially by “grievous wolves which not spared the flock, which spoke perverse things” to confuse and “to draw away disciples after them.” The flawed and contradictory character of these writings, even within themselves, can be seen especially in Philo, in Cyprian, in Hippolytus, in Tertullian, in Athanasius, in Augustine, in Cyril, in Jerome, in Calvin’s assassination of Servetus, etc.

"...One God, who in Himself is unity, yet appears in the likeness of a triad… a holy and divine vision... in such a way, that a single vision appears… as a triad, and a triad as unity...the intellect perceives most clearly a unity although previously it learned to apprehend it under the similitude of a trinity…"

[Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria) as quoted by E. R. Goodenough, Light, By Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, p.33. “Philo clearly taught [secretly and surrounded by mystery] the trinity doctrine, as did fellow philosophers, Pythagoras [who inherited his concept of the triangle to represent the triune god (Philo uses the triangle in his works)] and Plato - a doctrine which they all received from the Mystery teachings of Babylon” (Brian Hoeck). These Mystery teachings were also the sources of Theodotus' [and/or of Clement of Alexandria] "Christianized" Gnostic trinitarian doctrine, as cited by Clement on Theodotus version of Mt 28:19. Alexandria was a hotbed of philosophical thought. Jewish philosopher, Philo, lived in Alexandria and taught his false doctrines of Gnosticism there. From Alexandria emerged the most deplorable and fiery (or as Rubenstein may say, “doggish”) philosophers of the trinity: Alexander, and Athanasius, etc… as you can see]. In Philo we read: “God is not a compound being, inasmuch as he is a single nature” [XXXIV. (181)], but in the same work we read a contradictory statement [if Philo himself wrote it]: “I allow you to use the word Lord as a name; the Lord God of three natures--of instruction, and of holiness, and of the practice of virtue; of which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob are recorded as the symbols…”, “…the living God is so completely indescribable” [II. (7)], both references from “On the Change of Names”; also Philo wrote: “…a certain divine inspiration [from Philo’s own soul]… that in the one living and true God there were two supreme and primary powers--goodness and authority… and that the third thing which was between the two, and had the effect of bringing them together was reason…” [IX. (27)]; “Now I [Philo] bid ye, initiated men, who are purified, as to your ears, to receive these things, as mysteries … the knowledge namely of the great first Cause, and of virtue, and in the third place, of the generation of them both... an oracle in the character of God… "Hast thou not called me as thy house, and thy father, and the husband of thy Virginity?" (Jer. 3:4), showing by this expression most manifestly that God is both a house, the incorporeal abode of incorporeal ideas, and the Father of all things, inasmuch as it is he who has created them; and the husband of wisdom, sowing for the race of mankind the seed of happiness in good and virgin soil…” [XIV. (48)], both references from “The Cherubim” [“Gnostic mythology may have been derived from Jewish sectarian speculation… during the late 1st century AD, which in turn was probably influenced by Persian dualistic religions… By the 2nd century, Christian Gnostic teachers had synthesized this mythology with Platonic metaphysical speculation and with certain heretical “Christian” traditions. The most prominent “Christian” Gnostics were Valentinus and his disciple Ptolemaeus, who during the 2nd century were influential in the Roman church” ("Gnosticism," 1994, Microsoft Encarta). The catholic doctrine of the trinity “has parallels both in philosophy (the 19th-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel's Absolute) and in other religions (the Trimurti of Hinduism)” ("Trinity," 1994, Microsoft Encarta). Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire, the cult of Mithra: After the conquest of Assyria in the 7th century BC and of Babylonia in the 6th century BC, Mithra became the god of the sun, which was worshipped in his name. The Greeks of Asia Minor, by identifying Mithra with Helios, the Greek god of the sun, helped to spread the cult. It was brought to Rome about 68 BC by Cilician pirates whom the Roman general Pompey the Great had captured, and during the early empire it spread rapidly throughout Italy and the Roman provinces. It was a rival to Christianity in the Roman world. Mithraism and other pagans in Rome had ideals of humility and brotherly love, a trinity, a water baptism, the use of holy water, the adoration at Mithra's birth, the worship of images, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, the belief in the immortality of the soul, etc., etc... [and all that non-Biblical doctrines crept into catholic doctrine]. Gradually, the religion of the magi incorporated Babylonian elements, including astrology, demonology [invocation of the dead (later under the “dress of saints”) as “helpers”], and magic (The word magic is derived from the word magi). "Mithraism," "Magi," 1994, Microsoft Encarta] [To verify the infiltration of Platonic Philosophies, of Babylonian Baptismal Initiations and Mysteries go to the end of this page to see quotations done by early writers consecrated by the catholic church]

////////////

“And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit”

[Theodotus the Gnostic, as preserved in Theodotus’ version of the gospel of Matthew held and quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Conybeare, Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287 and in the Zeitsch. Fur die Neutest. Wissensch. 1901, p. 283). “Preserved among Clement's works is a fragment called Epitomes of the Writings of Theodotus, and of the Eastern Doctrine, most likely abridged extracts made by Clement for his own use, and giving considerable insight into Gnosticism. Clement's quotations from Scripture are made from the Septuagint version, often inaccurately from memory, sometimes from a different text from what we possess, often with verbal adaptations; and not rarely different texts are blended together (Introductory Note To Clement Of Alexandria).” Chap. XIX.--Theodotus. Theodotus affirms that Christ is a man of a kindred nature with all men, but that He surpasses them in this respect, that, according to the counsel of God, He had been born of a virgin, and the Holy Ghost had overshadowed His mother. … at first miraculous powers did not acquire operating energy in [the] Saviour Himself [until his baptism at Jordan]. Theodotus… deny the divinity of Christ (Hippolytus The Refutation Of All Heresies -- Book X); “…they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them... The copies of Asclepiades, at any rate, will be found at variance with those of Theodotus…” (Letter of Cyprian To Caius, Presbyter Of Rome. II. .-Against The Heresy Of Artemon. III. (In Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., v. 28)]

////////////

"...giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Irenaeus Against Heresies -- Book III, Chap. XVII.

[Irenaeus work on Heresies (second century), is well known in its early Latin dress, but a few fragments have reached us, through citations, in Greek. But it is also possible to be a later insertion brought by the Athanasians, as it was done in the Didache, in the Ignatian Epistles, and in other documents (see below). The worst has been the tampering against the Holy Word revealed by God]

////////////

“Alexander...in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery - the UNITY of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction [opposed Alexander], whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan…” (Book I. Ch. V. The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop); “…Ignatius third bishop of Antioch in Syria from the apostle Peter, who also had held intercourse with the apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels hymning in alternate chants the Holy Trinity…” (Book VI. Ch. VIII).

[The Ecclesiastical History--By Socrates Scholasticus.]

////////////

Chap. II.--Unity Of The Three Divine Persons.

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? " And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know?" And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Philippians.

[Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, lived from the end of the first century to the beginning of the second century, martyred, some say in A. D. 107 (Jerome says 109; while Pearson and Wordsworth say 115). “The Epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy [together with the other spurious documents] connected with the primitive church… there are in all, fifteen epistles which bear the name of Ignatius… it is now the universal opinion… that [at least] the first eight… were spurious… They bear in themselves indubitable proof of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius, nor Jerome make the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were, at various dates and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated bishop of Antioch… none of them are quoted or referred to by any Christian writer previous to the 6th century” [Roberts, Donaldson and Crombie, in T. & T. Clarck’s Ante Nicene Library, Vol. I, p. 139, 451, Introductory Notice on The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers]. The epistle to the Philippians is one of that eight [more evidently] spurious documents, in it, there are references to heresies and events, which did not take place till the close of the 2nd century! Of the other seven Ignatian epistles (acknowledged by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III, 36), today we have two Greek “originals”, a shorter and a longer. “It is plain that one or the other of these [or both, as we have them now] exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have, for the most part, agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius (p. 140)”, but the authenticity of even the shorter form was more than questioned by such scholars as Lardner (1743); Mosheim (1755); Griesbach (1768); Rosenmuller (1795); Neander (1826)’ and many others… in 1838-42 a Syriac version was discovered, and was published by Dr. Cureton in 1845. But this contained only the Ignatian epistles to Polycarp [also spurious], the Ephesians and the Romans. This opened the controversy afresh…” (Bullinger, E. W., The Lord’s Day, 1907, Things to Come, 13(6): 64). Also see Harnack’s note]

////////////

“Now as regards baptism, thus baptize ye: having first rehearsed all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice, in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but the baptized thou shalt command to fast for one or two days before”

"The Didache" (The Teaching), 7, 1-4. Anonymous treatise of the late first or early second century, “perhaps Syrian or Palestinian baptismal usage” (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1963, p. 1015). Harry Rimmer, Crying Stones, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946, p. 99.

["The [trinitarian] evidence of the spurious Didache (also called “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”)… 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, while the other famous passage (7, 1-4) teaches a Trinitarian Baptism… Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache of 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 (See note below, under Cyprian of Carthage) but later changed to the Trinitarian Baptism. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the triune (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion, in 9, 4) 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 triune 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 Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 1, Prolegomena 1). The Didache was unknown until its discovery in 1873 and its publication in 1883 by Philotheos Bryennios, Greek metropolitan of Nicomedia.]

////////////

"And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Since, therefore, it is manifest that heretics--that is, the enemies of Christ--have not the sound confession of the sacrament; moreover, that schismatics cannot season others with spiritual wisdom, since they themselves, by departing from the Church, which is one, having lost the savour, have become contrary to it"

"Euchratius of Thence said: “God and our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." ” Thus the false and wicked baptism of heretics must be rejected by us, and refuted with all detestation, from whose month is expressed poison, not life, not celestial grace, but blasphemy of the Trinity. And therefore it is manifest that heretics who come to the Church ought to be baptized with the sound and Catholic baptism, in order that, being purified from the blasphemy of their presumption, they may be reformed by the grace of the Holy Spirit."

The Seventh Council Of Carthage Under Cyprian. Concerning The Baptism Of Heretics. The Judgment Of Eighty-Seven Bishops On The Baptism Of Heretics.

Prooemium.--When Stephen, Bishop Of Rome, Had By His Letters Condemned The Decrees Of The African Council On The Baptism Of Heretics, Cyprian Lost No Time In Holding Another Council At Carthage With A Greater Number Of Bishops. Having Therefore Summoned Eighty-Seven Bishops From Africa, Numidia, And Mauritania, Who Assembled At Carthage In The Kalends Of September, A.D. 258, This Third Council On The Same Matter Of Baptism Was Then Celebrated; At The Beginning Of Which, After, The Letters On Either Side Had Been Read, Cyprian, By Implication, Condemns The Assumption Of Stephen.

[The “Prooemium” is the original heading text and on it can be seen the heart of that leadership, wanting to carry behind them as much people as possible, to make them to believe in their own particular views and opinions instead of the pure well of the Scriptures given by God.]

---------

3... "For while the Lord has said that the nations are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and their past sins are to be done away in baptism; this man, ignorant of the precept and of the law, commands peace to be granted and sins to be done away in the name of Paulus; and he says that this was commanded him by Paulus, as you will observe in the letter sent by the same Lucian to Celerinus"

The Epistles Of Cyprian, Epistle XXII. To The Clergy Abiding At Rome.

[In at least three other epistles (24, 62, 72) and in a treatise (12) Cyprian (circa 200-58) contends harshly on his promotion of the trinity, and also in two other anonymous treatises related to him (against Novatian and on re-baptism, the last being a reply against Cyprian: "The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century...dwells at length on 'the power in the name of Jesus invoked upon a man in baptism' " (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p 352, quoting De Rebaptismate 6.7). This “Cyprian (of Carthage) used the text: “Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, as a “battle-cry” in his strife with Pope Stephen I (Epist. 73 and just before “ad Iubaianum”). The official church of Rome however ignored his arguments, and adopted the position that baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite valid. As the canon of the Synod of Nemours (1284) expresses it: “Dicimus, infantem baptizatum esse, si baptizans dicit: Baptizo te in nomine Christi”. It in some measure explains this decision of the Popes that the text of Mt 28, 19 was not yet authoritatively fixed by the church" (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 286). “When Decius, emperor of Rome, instituted a persecution of the Christians, Cyprian fled from Carthage… His Doctrine in his De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate (On the Unity of the Catholic Church), is an exposition of the hierarchical organization of the church” ("Cyprian, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

////////////

14... "we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews glorified (or gloried in) the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognize the Son. The disciples recognized the Son, but not in the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him. The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth."

The Extant Works And Fragments Of Hippolytus: Part II. D. Against The Heresy Of One Noetus.

[Here, Hippolytus of Rome (circa 170-235, “the most important 3rd-century theologian of the Roman church and the first “antipope” ”), is even wrongfully accusing of “not recognizing holy ghost” over the very disciples of Jesus Christ, and by his own authority, Hippolytus is imposing his views in a wrong and absolutist way. The next are the real words that Jesus has to say about the true worshipping, far from Hippolytus: “the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:23-24). After a careful examination of the Word of God, we can see that to “worship the Father in spirit and in truth” is through manifesting “holy spirit”, the very thing that the true Apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ did since Pentecost (Acts 2:4, 8:17-19, 10:44-46, 19:6, 9:17, 1 Cor. 14:18, 14-15, Eph. 6:18-19, Jude 20, Mk. 16:17, 1 Cor. 14:2,21. Please, I beg you to read carefully each of the verses quoted here in your own Bible, if you really want to unlock the truth and the power of holy spirit within your life, as was within the true disciples of Jesus Christ at the beginning)]

////////////

“…the three days [of Genesis 1] which were before the luminaries [of the day four], are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man…”

Theophilus Of Antioch: Theophilus To Autolycus -- Book II. Chap. XV.--Of The Fourth Day.

[This is an earlier writing that wrongfully allowed the identification of “the Word” with a second person in this “doctrine of men”, and of “wisdom” with a third one]

////////////

Chap. II.--The Catholic Doctrine Of The Trinity And Unity, Sometimes Called The Divine Economy, Or Dispensation Of The Personal Relations Of The Godhead.

“…only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.”

Chap. III.--Sundry Popular Fears And Prejudices. The Doctrine Of The Trinity In Unity Rescued From These Misapprehensions.

“The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.”

Tertullian, VII. Against Praxeas; In Which He Defends, In All Essential Points, The Doctrine Of The Holy Trinity.

[Tertullian (~160-220 A.D.), “the first important ecclesiastical writer in Latin, leader of the heretical Montanists”, “his views on ethics and discipline, rigorously ascetic from the first, became progressively more harsh in his later works” [if he really wrote them], because, how can Tertullian have really argued himself that the church alone has the authority to declare what is and what is not orthodox (including water baptism in the name of the trinity), if he was himself considered an heretic by the organized church of his time? [Those statements smack as being from Cyprian’s pen]. Tertullian [if he wrote that] seems to be criticizing positions like the one held by Hippolytus and, wanting to be more “specific”, he adds his unbearable philosophy and imaginations, which are absent of any kind of divine logic, as nothing on it is found on the Bible. This opinion of Tertullian [if was of him] became glorified in the catholic dogma of the holy trinity in the form of: “one true God in three different persons”. As stated before, the real “mystery of this dispensation” according to God, can be found by carefully reading the Bible. Bullinger’s summary about the real “mystery” revealed to us by God, is given in: http//www.geocities.com/fdocc2/mystery.htm]

////////////

"Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed; but Eusebius denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius. In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of Persons; yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace…"

Nicetas Choniates, “Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith”, Book F. Chap. 7. quotation also found in Theodorus Metochita, XIV Century, Cap. Miscell. 19; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLTV. 949.

////////////

In the Nicaean Council “Eusebius said to Euphration: "the Son is himself God, but not true God." ”

[The Life And Writings Of Eusebius Of Caesarea, Chapter I]

////////////

Lecture IV. On The Ten Points Of Doctrine. Colossians ii. 8. Of Christ.

“7. Believe also in the Son of God, One and Only, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who was begotten God of God, begotten Life of Life, begotten Light of Light, Who is in all things likes to Him that begat, Who received not His being in time, but was before all ages eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father: The Wisdom and the Power of God, and His Righteousness personally subsisting: Who sitteth on the right hand of the Father before all ages.”

Lecture XI. On The Words, The Only-Begotten Son Of God, Begotten Of The Father Very God Before All Ages, By Whom All Things Were Made. Hebrews I. 1.

4 “...He was not begotten to be other than He was before; but was begotten from the beginning Son of the Father, being above all beginning and all ages, Son of the Father, in all things like to Him who begot Him, eternal of a Father eternal, Life of Life begotten, and Light of Light, and Truth of Truth, and Wisdom of the Wise, and King of King, and God of God, and Power of Power..."

18 “...in all things the Son is like to Him who begat Him; begotten Life of Life and Light of Light, Power of Power, God of God; and the characteristics of the Godhead are unchangeable in the Son..."

Cyril Of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures.

[“Cyril of Jerusalem (315?-87), ecclesiastic, “father of the church” and “Doctor of the Church”. Deposed three times. Upon the death of Constantius II, emperor of Rome, Cyril was again restored to his episcopate [after his second deposition]. Cyril was immediately involved in new difficulties and was banished [third deposition] in 367 by Valens, Roman emperor of the East; he returned after the emperor's death in 378. He presents the creed of the church in a more nearly complete and systematic manner than the writings of any other…” ("Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

////////////

"...seeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians... we can hardly think that a man brought up in the Capitol would have learnt the doctrine of the co-essential Trinity. He would have known in that case that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not divided in nature, but in person. He would have known also that the name of Son was implied in that of Father and the name of Father in that of Son...Besides, it is the custom at baptism to ask, after the confession of faith in the Trinity, do you believe in Holy Church? Do you believe in the remission of sins? What Church do you say he believed in? The Church of the Arians?... nor that poor woman who for twelve years was wasting away with a bloody flux, had believed in the mysteries of the Trinity, for these were revealed to the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ; so that the faith of such as believe in the mystery of the Trinity might have its due preeminence: but it was her singleness of mind and her devotion to her God that met with our Lord's approval...”

Jerome, The Dialogue Against The Luciferians (~379 A.D.)

[The Luciferians were the followers of one man called Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia]

[“Jerome, in Latin, Eusebius Hieronymus (circa 345-420), spent three years in Constantinople with the Eastern church father, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and became secretary to Pope Damasus I and gained much influence… Jerome engaged in controversy not only with the heretics Jovinian (4th century) and Vigilantius (4th-5th century) and the adherents of Pelagianism, but also with the monk and theologian Tyrannius Rufinus and with Augustine” ("Jerome, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

////////////

Book XII. Chapter VII-Out Of Nothing God Made Heaven And Earth.

“...Thou mightest create them, O God, One Trinity, and Trine Unity...

Book XII. Chapter IX-That The Heaven Of Heavens Was An Intellectual Creature, But That The Earth Was Invisible And Formless Before The Days That It Was Made”.

“…verily that heaven of heavens which Thou createdst in the Beginning, is some intellectual creature, which, although no ways coeternal unto Thee, the Trinity, yet partaketh of Thy eternity...”

Book XIII. Chapter V- He Recognises The Trinity In The First Two Verses Of Genesis.

“Lo, now the Trinity appears unto me in a glass darkly, which is Thou my God, because Thou, O Father, in Him Who is the Beginning of our wisdom, Which is Thy Wisdom, born of Thyself, equal unto Thee and coeternal, that is, in Thy Son, createdst heaven and earth …under the name of God, I now held the Father, who made these things, and under the name of Beginning, the Son, in whom He made these things; and believing, as I did, my God as the Trinity, I searched further in His holy words, and to, Thy Spirit moved upon the waters. Behold the Trinity, my God, Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, Creator of all creation.”

Book XIII. Chapter XI-That The Symbols Of The Trinity In Man, To Be, To Know, And To Will, Are Never Thoroughly Examined.

“Which of us comprehendeth the Almighty Trinity? and yet which speaks not of It, if indeed it be It? Rare is the soul, which while it speaks of It, knows what it speaks of. And they contend and strive, yet, without peace, no man sees that vision. I would that men would consider these three, that are in themselves. These three be indeed far other than the Trinity: I do but tell, where they may practice themselves, and there prove and feel how far they be. Now the three I spake of are, To Be, to Know, and to Will. For I Am, and Know, and Will: I Am Knowing and Willing: and I Know myself to Be, and to Will: and I Will to Be, and to Know …and whether because of these three, there is in God also a Trinity …unchangeably the Self-same, by the abundant greatness of its Unity, -who can readily conceive this? who could any ways express it? who would, any way, pronounce thereon rashly?

Book XIII. Chapter XXII-He Explains The Divine Image Of The Renewal Of The Mind.

“...Thou teachest him, now made capable, to discern the Trinity of the Unity, and the Unity of the Trinity. Wherefore to that said in the plural. Let us make man, is yet subjoined in the singular, And God made man: and to that said in the plural. After our likeness, is subjoined in the singular, After the image of God. Thus is man renewed in the knowledge of God, after the image of Him that created him: and being made spiritual, he judgeth all things (all things which are to be judged), yet himself is judged of no man.”

Augustine Confessions (401 A.D.)

[Here, Augustine asks of the trinity: “Which of us comprehendeth the Almighty Trinity? … if indeed it be It?”, later he says: “who can readily conceive this? who could any ways express it?”, “rare is the soul, which while it speaks of It, knows what it speaks of. And they contend and strive, yet, without peace”. According to Augustine, nobody can understand that doctrine (there is even an Augustine’s fable of a little child trying to put the whole ocean into a small hole in the sand, and as impossible as that is, impossible also is to understand “the holy doctrine of the trinity”), but yet that doctrine is the cornerstone of the catholic religion and of many others at this very moment and time, and for that “incomprehensible” reason, Augustine and many others wrote innumerable pages regarding the trinity… Augustine also quotes the Bible which says that “the spiritual man is not judged by any man”… but Augustine himself is judging what is meant to be “spiritual”, not according to the Bible, but according to Augustine’s own imaginations and preconceived flawed teachings and ideas, and then, based on that kind of “standards”, the catholic church persecuted and even killed, every one else who was not able to accept “the non-understandable” doctrine of the trinity (see “the Inquisition”). Let’s see how Augustine went to the Bible having the trinitarian preconceived idea on the front of his forehead: “believing, as I did, my God as the Trinity, I searched further in His holy words”. With such kind of “foundation for Augustine’s Biblical research”, Augustine was the first one that stated that, when God said “Let us make man… after our likeness” in Gen. 1:26, it was in plural because the trinity was present there. “Research doesn’t begin with the answers; it looks for the answers”. Augustine dismissed the oriental idiom of speech “Heterosis” here in Genesis: “the first person plural pronouns “us”, “we”, and “our”, are used to indicate the magnitude of the incident to which God related Himself.” “When a plural noun or pronoun is used, but the singular case is true to fact, the plural is used for the singular when great excellence or magnitude is denoted” (Wierwille, Jesus Christ is not God, p. 3, 83-84). Other examples are: when Jesus was talking with Nicodemus, Jesus (singular) talked of himself in plural in the next statement: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (Jn. 3:10-12)”, an Heterosis also can be seen in Mr. 4:30 “And he (Jesus) said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?”, and in Daniel 2:36 “this is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king” (Daniel alone is speaking, Dn. 2:25-26; was he also part of some trinity?). “Mystifying” figures of speech by the imaginations of men is a bias to promote erroneous doctrines (other of such examples can be seen in the absurd doctrine of the “transubstantiation”), which eventually, and against God’s will, became “dogmas”. By other side, when God created man, His angels were already created (Job 38:7), and many were collaborating with Him, not a trinity but a “huge host” of faithful servants, under the commands of God. This Augustine of Hippo is the same that wrote to Jerome indicating him that he should dismiss the Hebrew Old Testament original texts but rather, to use the Greek Septuagint (of a lower quality), for “The Vulgate”; fortunately, as we will see in Jerome’s Letters, Jerome dismissed such bad “advice”. This Augustine is the same one that attempted to do a harmony of the gospels, but did a work of low quality. Even “Microsoft Encarta” ("Trinity (theology), 1994) exposes Augustinian inconsistencies when saying, “In the West, the 4th-century theologian St. Augustine's influential work De Trinitate (On the Trinity, 400-16) compared the three-in-oneness of God with analogous structures in the human mind and suggested that the Holy Spirit may be understood as the mutual love between Father and Son (although this second point seems difficult to reconcile with the belief that the Spirit is a distinct, coequal member of the Trinity)”. However, this same Augustine is one of the highest and foremost “doctors and pillars for the doctrine of the holy trinity”.]

[“Augustine (354-430). His father, Patricius (died about 371), was a pagan (later converted to Christianity), but his mother, Monica, was a devout Christian who labored untiringly for her son's conversion and who was canonized by the Roman Catholic church. Between the ages of 15 and 30, Augustine lived with a Carthaginian woman whose name is unknown; in 372 she bore him a son, whom he named Adeodatus. For nine years, from 373 until 382, he adhered to Manichaeism, a Persian dualistic philosophy then widely current in the Western Roman Empire, its moral code was not unpleasantly strict; Augustine later recorded in his Confessions: “Give me chastity and continence, but not just now.” Disillusioned by the impossibility of reconciling certain contradictory Manichaeist doctrines, Augustine abandoned this philosophy and turned to skepticism. Then he came under the influence of the philosophy of Neoplatonism and also met the bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, then the most distinguished ecclesiastic in Italy. One day, according to his own account, he seemed to hear a voice, like that of a child, repeating, “Take up and read.” He interpreted this as a divine exhortation to open the Scriptures and read the first passage he happened to see. Accordingly, he opened to Romans 13:13-14, where he read: “…not in revelry and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.” He immediately resolved to embrace Christianity. Along with his natural son, he was baptized by Ambrose. He became bishop of Hippo (now Annaba, Algeria) in 395, an office he held until his death. Augustine developed his doctrines of original sin and divine grace, divine sovereignty, and predestination. The Roman Catholic church has found special satisfaction in the institutional or ecclesiastical aspects of his doctrines; Roman Catholic and Protestant theology alike are largely based on their more purely theological aspects. John Calvin and Martin Luther, leaders of the Reformation, were both close students of Augustine. Against Pelagian doctrine, he held that human spiritual disobedience had resulted in a state of sin that human nature was powerless to change. In his theology, men and women are saved by the gift of divine grace; against Manichaeism he vigorously defended the place of free will in cooperation with grace. The last 12 books of his “City of God (413-26)” trace the origin, progress, and destiny of the church and establish it as the proper successor to paganism. In the Retractions (428), he registered his final verdict upon his earlier books, correcting whatever his matured judgment held to be misleading or wrong. ("Augustine, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta). “Ambrose is best known as the sympathizing friend of Monica, mother of Augustine, and as the one who received Augustine into the church” ("Ambrose, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta) “Augustine was deficient in exact scholarship. Thoroughly versed in Latin literature, he knew little Greek, and no Hebrew. He refers more than once in his Harmony of the Gospels to his ignorance of the original language of the Old Testament, without alluding to the distinction between Greek words, it was not his habit to prosecute these studies with the original in his view. Hence we find him missing many explanations which would at once have suggested themselves, had he not so implicitly followed the imperfect versions [in Latin] of the sacred text” (S. D. F. S. Translator's Introductory Notice, in Augustine’s Harmony of the Gospels). “Augustine, the Western church's great Father and Doctor of the 4th and 5th centuries, taught that in the search for truth people must depend upon sense experience” ("Aquinas, Saint Thomas," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

////////////

I. “And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the God-head of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father un-create, the Son un-create: and the Holy Ghost un-create.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternal: but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensible, nor three un-created: but one un-created, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord: and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord;

So we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater, or less than another;

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.”

Confession Of ‘Our Christian Faith’, Commonly Called ‘The Creed Of St. Athanasius’.

["The Creed of Athanasius," is acknowledged to embody the (Athanasian) doctrine of the Nicene Council. The Anglo-American Church has ceased to recite this Confession in public worship, but does not depart from it as doctrine.” Athanasius was a disciple of Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt. The name “Alexander” was associated with rebellion against the Word of God since the last days of Paul the Apostle (1 Tim. 1:20, 2 Tim. 4:14, quoted in Appendix 6). Athanasius was an enemy of Arius. “Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop of Alexandria from 328; theologian of the “incarnation” (“the incarnation of the logos” in Spanish “la encarnación del verbo”, that according to the theology of Athanasius means “the incarnation of God, becoming a man” “la encarnación de Dios, hecho hombre”, it’s reasoning is that as God = logos and Christ = logos so God = Christ, but that is not to be found in the Bible, as the logos is the Word of God, The Truth, the one will and purpose that was common for Christ and for God, the logos that they want to be also in us), and leader of the Nicene party; condemned by the Council of Tyre (335), inter alia; exiled five times.” Athanasius argues that God the Father is also God the Son. He says God actually became Jesus despite the fact that, throughout the Gospels, the Son describes himself as being other than the Father and less than Him… Athanasius simply ignores New Testament words that are “inconsistent” with his theory! In fact, since he cannot find any basis in Scripture for his conception, he and his friends borrow a word from Greek philosophy – homoousios (consubstancial, consustancial)– to express it. What does this unscriptural word mean? Athanasius says that God… choose to turn Himself into a man for “the sake of our salvation”. Jesus Christ is not one of God’s creatures, he insists, but God Himself, “incarnated” in human form. These sound like clear statements, but, actually, they are hopelessly confused. Athanasius maintains that this utterly transcendent God transformed Himself into a man, suffered, died, and then resurrected Himself! Doesn’t this mixture of Creator and creature sound pagan?… Athanasius hastens to add that the Father’s method of generating the Son is beyond human understanding, and that Christ, being God, was perfect by nature and could not change as humans do. But, How can Jesus be a model for human behavior if he was incapable of change? Athanasius’ answer is that this is a matter that is beyond human understanding! Indeed! Everything about Athanasius’ theories are beyond human understanding. The problem is not only that Athanasius’s theory mixes God with His creation, but also that it removes Jesus entirely from human society, from the universe of moral turmoil… how can we hope to imitate Jesus? And if he is God Himself, not our representative and intermediary, how can he intervene on our behalf?… What, one wonders, would Jesus have made of that?. However, Athanasius proposed a political common front with conservative Arians (which he used to designate as “Ariomaniacs”) in his fight against the heathen policies of Julian. Athanasius was “quite prepared to use the violent methods of the streets when necessary, to accomplish worthwhile goals,” “if his character had been more “saintly” (as the term is commonly used), he might not have been exiled quite so often. But a calmer, more loving personality might not have been sufficiently energized by determination and rage to endure, retaliate, and win” “Athanasius was clearly the most powerful man in Egypt in the early 350’s”, Rubenstein, R.E., When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, p. 63, 117-9, 196-7, 176, 211, 234, “in Alexandria, Athanasius maintained an ecclesiastical mafia… he could instigate a riot or prevent the orderly administration of the city... a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence… like modern gangsters, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence – and usually succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges,” Barnes, T. D., 1981, Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 230-31, etc. (see Appendix 4 to deal with Rubenstein’s conclusion). This Athanasius is considered by Catholics as “Doctor of their Church” and is another of the “pillars for the doctrine of the trinity”.]

[Sir William Whiston stated, "We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption made in any one of them [the Scriptures] by either the Eusebians or Arians." (Second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p 15). “In the last half of the fourth century, the text 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called 'pneumatomachi' or 'fighters against the Holy Spirit', because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius [meaning, they lacked the triune reading of Mt 28:19]” (Hibbert Journal , F. Conybeare). The same can be said of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24)— “for they baptise not into the trinity, but into the death of Christ” (Encyclopedia Biblica, article: Baptism)]

////////////

“We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but [who affirm] the order of the trinity to be recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead.”

Theodosious I Roman Emperor, Episcopis Tradi, 381 A.D. The edict of Theodosious I (Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 A.D., 1988, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, p. 821).

[Theodosious I, August of the East (369-383); sole emperor (379-395); convenor of the Council of Constantinople (381); outlawed Arianism. “Theodosius was an enthusiastic persecutor… Manicheans were hunted down and killed. He had a bloody temper, too; he invited some seven thousand citizens of Thessalonica (Thessoloníki, Greece, 390 AD) to a special show in that city’s arena, only to massacre them as punishment for a riot that had killed one of his officials” (Frend, “Rise of Christianity”, 624-625; Williams, “Ambrose of Milan”, quoted by: Rubenstein, R. E., When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, p. 224, 234. Theodosius was born in Spain and was the last man to rule a united Roman Empire. He was a strong champion of orthodox Christianity; he persecuted the Arians ("Theodosius I," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)].

////////////

“As the Apostles deviated from their master’s precept given in Mt. 28:19 in regard to baptism, so the church has the right to set them aside as regards the Eucharist, by withholding the cup from the laity”.

John of Ragusa, “De Communione Sub Utraque Species” [addressed A. D. 1433 to the Council of Bàle (Mansi Concilia XXXIX; col. 858)]

[Conybeare comments (in 1901) “I do not know if any will pursue his hypothesis a little further and argue that the Apostles, when they “set aside the “formam traditam per Dominum”, also introduced the Eusebian form of text at Mt 28, 19!”. However, that reasoning is at the root of the catholic custom to withhold the cup from the “laity”, as Thomas Aquinas propounded the same ill argument [in III, 9. 66, a. b., ad. I. John (l. c. col. 863), and Aquinas is the catholic “sacred bull”, “saint” and “doctor of the catholic church”]. My comment is that an adulteration in the Word of God (in Mt. 28:19) have brought more pain and confusion and transgression against God’s originally revealed Word, no matter how sincere that tampering may have appeared for such religious and political leadership.]

////////////

“The difference of the hypostases [persons or beings?] does not dissolve the continuity of their nature, nor does the community of their nature dissipate the particularity of their characteristics. Do not be amazed if we declare that the same thing is united and distinct, and conceive, as in a riddle, of a new and paradoxical unity in distinction and distinction in unity… God is not God because he is Father nor the Son because he is the Son, but because both possess the ousia [substance or essence?] of Godhead”

[Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Holy Trinity” and “On Not Three Gods,” in Schaff and Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 5, Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 326-336. Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 A.D., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, pp. 723-726.]

[“The Arians charged Gregory with fraud in his election to the bishopric and with mishandling the funds of his office. Convicted of these charges, he was exiled from Nyssa in 376 to 378. After his return Gregory was a strong supporter of the orthodox position against the Arians at the first Council of Constantinople in 381. In the next year he was sent by the church to reorganize the churches of Arabia” ("Gregory of Nyssa, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

////////////

“ “Was the Lord’s prayer addressed only to the hypostasis [being?] of the Father as “our Father” and the Father of the Son, or to the entire ousia [essence?] of the Godhead?” Basil’s answer… was to declare that “what was common to the Three and what was distinctive among them lay beyond speech and comprehension and therefore beyond either analysis or conceptualization”… Adopting an idea of Origen’s that easterners would appreciate, Basil of Caesarea (“Basil the Great”) described Jesus as a “sharer of [God’s] nature, not created by fiat, but shining out continuously from his ousia [essence?]”. And regarding the Holy Spirit, “of the wise men among ourselves, some have conceived of him as an activity, some as a creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call him… And therefore they neither worship him nor treat him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position,” but he “shares the same divine essence, is a third individual being (or Person) “consubstantial” with the Father and the Son” ”

[Basil of Caesarea (“Basil the Great”): in Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. I, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971, p. 213, 223. Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 A.D., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, pp. 687-688.]

[Basil was called upon by the bishop of Caesarea to defend catholic doctrines against the heretical attacks of the Arians. “In 370 he himself was elected bishop of Caesarea, a post he held until his death on January 1, 379. Basil's grandmother Macrina; his parents, Basil and Emmelia; his sister Macrina, and his younger brothers Gregory and Peter of Sebaste are all venerated as saints” ("Basil, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta]

////////////

“The Father is greater than the Son in the sense that the Son derived his equality and being from Him.”

[Gregory of Nazianzus in: Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. I, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971, p. 222-223.]

[“Gregory of Nazianzus (circa 329-89),baptized in 360 by his father, who was bishop of Nazianzus. With Basil compiled an anthology of the writings of the Christian teacher and theologian Origen, called the Philokalia (Greek, “Love of the Beautiful”). Basil later became bishop of Caesarea and, in 371 or 372, prevailed upon Gregory to accept the see of Sasima, a small village in Cappadocia. Gregory took charge of the Nicene congregation of Constantinople. There he delivered five discourses on the Trinity that earned him fame as The Theologian. He was appointed bishop, but retired in the face of resistance from the Arians. Hoping to prevent further schism, he returned to Nazianzus, where he remained until his death ("Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

Basil “the Great” of Cesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus are considered as “The Cappadocian Fathers”.

////////////

“Far from considering himself only a man, Jesus ‘understands himself’ “from above” in his whole human existence’… the Council of Chalcedon provided a ‘valid and permanently binding’ version of what the New Testament teaches, ‘namely, [that] in Jesus Christ, God Himself has entered into human history.’ ”

[Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 1976, Paulist Press. “If Kasper meant what he said, it would be true because God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). God in Christ did enter into human history, but that may not be what Kasper means. As a theologian, granting his truthfulness to the “Council of Chalcedon”, Kasper would most likely mean it was God who came – not Jesus Christ the Son of God, but Jesus Christ, God the Son. Which we have seen in the Bible to be wrong ”]

////////////

“Kung’s wrote that: “God ‘was present, at work, speaking, acting and definitely revealing himself’ in Jesus’” …Cardinal Hoffner, chairman of a bishops’ conference, wrote a letter accusing Kung of evading a binding creed and demanded in exasperation: ‘Is Jesus Christ the pre-existing, eternal Son of God, one in being with the Father?’… [the Roman Catholic hierarchy] issued a formal warning that the book [that Hans Kung had written], created “a distressing insecurity of faith” and charged that Hans Küng had failed to explain how his Christology could be reconciled with the historic creeds.”

[Time Magazine, “New Debate on Jesus”, Feb. 27, 1978. Historic creeds can’t be reconciled with the truth of the Bible, because the “historic creeds” are in error. ]

[Küng, Hans (1928- ), he was official theologian for the Second Vatican Council. His work “The Council, Reform and Reunion” (1960; trans. 1962) questions the doctrine of “infallibility” and calls for reform in both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Among his major works are “The Church, Infallible?” (1967; trans. 1967). In 1975 the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a warning to Küng against further theological writing or teaching. His commission to teach as part of the Roman Catholic faculty was revoked in 1979 ("Kung, Hans," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

////////////

“Ansfried Hulsbosch “issued a manifesto against the Council of Chalcedon. The church, he wrote, should ‘no longer speak of a union of the divine and human nature in one pre-existent person’.”

[Ansfried Hulsbosch, 1966, an Augustinian from the Netherlands.]

////////////

“The doctrine of the trinity states that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God and together, not exclusively, they form one God. The trinity is co-eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal”

[William Wilson Stevens, Doctrine of the Christian Religion, 1967, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., pp. 113-122]

////////////

“Matthew does not here report the ipsissima verba of Jesus, but transfers to him the familiar language of the church of the Evangelist’s own time and locality”.

Canon Armitage Robinson, Encyclopaedia Biblica.

////////////

“No one can explain the trinity. We simply accept it by faith.”

[Dr. L. H. Kunst, pastor]

////////////

3… the church was impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and Person…

4… a Trinity of Persons subsisted in the one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God….

5… there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence... three in one essence, the persons in this Trinity...

17 …nothing can be more admirable than the words of Gregory Nanzianzen: (Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro Baptis.). "I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity"…

19… Augustine's fifth book on the Trinity is wholly devoted to the explanation of this subject. But it is far safer to rest contented with the relation as taught by him… a sublime mystery.

10… Impiety of Servetus refuted… [Calvin affirms that] the Son appeared in the form of an angel.

Hence the impiety of Servetus was the more detestable, when he maintained that God was never manifested to Abraham and the Patriarchs, but… an angel... The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured for him the name of the Angel still, however, he retained the character which justly belonged to him-that of the God of ineffable glory… Servetus… insinuates… an angel… [but John Calvin declared that] Christ… is the God who was always worshipped by the Jews.

22. The more modern Anti Trinitarians, and especially Servetus, refuted.

… the essence of the one God, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and indivisible… the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit… [Calvin’s doctrine, according to Calvin himself, will be a] door… shut against Arius and Sabellius, as well as the other ancient authors of error. But as in our day have arisen certain frantic men, such as Servetus and others, who, by new devices, have thrown every thing into confusion, it may be worthwhile briefly to discuss their fallacies. The name of Trinity was so much disliked, nay detested, by Servetus, that he charged all whom he called Trinitarians with being Atheists. I say nothing of the insulting terms in which he thought proper to make his charges. The sum of his speculations was, that a threefold Deity is introduced wherever three Persons are said to exist in his essence, and that this Triad was imaginary, inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the unity of God. At the same time, he would have it that the Persons are certain external ideas… that at first, indeed, there was no distinction in God, because originally the Word was the same as the Spirit, but ever since Christ came forth… the Spirit… the same Spirit substantially is a portion of God in us... His absurd babbling [Servet’s according to Calvin] concerning the person of the Mediator will be seen in its own place (Calvin. Defensio Orthodox. Fid. S. Trinit. Adv. Prod. Error. M. Serveti)… The monstrous fiction that a Person is nothing else than a visible appearance of the glory of God, needs not a long refutation.

… he could not then be an image or representation of God, as Servetus dreams. But he [Servetus according to Calvin] is elsewhere forced to make a more open disclosure of his impiety when he says, that God by his eternal reason decreeing a Son to himself… if this be true, no other Divinity is left to Christ than is implied in his having been ordained a Son by God's eternal decree… Servetus substitutes for the hypostases… the most execrable heresy of all is his confounding both the Son and Spirit promiscuously with all the creatures… This he does especially when he says, that the spirits of the faithful are co-eternal and consubstantial with God…

23. This pool has bred another monster not unlike the former. For certain restless spirits, unwilling to share the disgrace and obloquy of the impiety of Servetus, have confessed… in such shocking terms as these: that the Father is essentially distinguished from the Son and Spirit by this; that he is the only essentiator. Their first pretext for this is, that Christ is uniformly called the Son of God. From this they infer, that there is no proper God but the Father…. The Father certainly cannot differ from the Son, unless he [The Father] have something peculiar to himself, and not common to him [The Father] with the Son…

25. Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God. And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used this term only with reference to the Persons…

28. …Tertullian... though his style is sometimes rugged and obscure… delivers the doctrine which we maintain in no ambiguous manner, namely, that while there is one God… in unity of substance; but that, nevertheless, by the mystery of dispensation, the unity is arranged into Trinity; that there are three, not in state, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in order…

[John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion. Book First. - Of The Knowledge Of God The Creator. Chapter 13. - The Unity Of The Divine Essence In Three Persons Taught, In Scripture, From The Foundation Of The World]

[Calvin formulated his theology based in the catholic tradition, as he frequently cited the church fathers and other medieval catholic thinkers (we have seen in the quotations of his book exultant references to Gregory Nazianzen, Augustin, Tertullian, the orthodox doctors of the church, etc.), and blindly followed the articles of a spurious document, "the Apostles' Creed", to establish his theology. That creed, was not of apostolic origin, but developed as "the trinitarian water baptism confession" of the "catholic faith"; similar confession appears in the baptismal liturgy of "The Apostolic Tradition" of Hippolytus (circa 215), and similar versions are also found in the writings of the early (patristic) writers of the catholic Church, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, in which they are called “rules of faith.” A form identical with what is now called the spurious "Apostles' Creed" did not emerge until the early 8th century, in the writings of Pirminius; in Roman Catholic practice, the Creed is recited in the Daily Office, before the first and after the last service each day. In most Protestant churches, it is used periodically at Sunday worship. Anglicans and Lutherans use it regularly in Morning and Evening Prayer (Matins and Evensong). Like most catholic creeds, the spurious foundation of Calvin contains three paragraphs, one for each person of the Trinity. Calvin took pains to emphasize the continuity of his doctrines with the catholic orthodoxy expressed in the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds, and his theology has been recognized as lying in the Augustinian tradition. Calvin supported the Gnostic practice of the “sacraments” (baptism and the Eucharist) celebrated as mysteries, being the mystery of the trinity the primary tenet of his theology. In 1536 Calvin published the 1st edition of his Christianismi Institutio ("Institutes of the Christian Religion", which he revised at least five times between 1536 and 1559), in four books, focused on the articles “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit,” and “Church,” which he calls the "universal catholic church"). Calvin was asked by Guillaume Farel to assist in Geneva's reformation movement. Calvin remained in Geneva with Farel until 1538, when the town voted against Farel and asked both men to leave. However, in 1541 Calvin was requested again to return to Geneva and lead them in reforming the church. He remained in that city for the rest of his life. However, he did not become a citizen of Geneva until 1559. Until the defeat of the Perrin family in 1555, there was significant opposition to Calvin's leadership in the city. Dissenting Christians were frequently expelled, and Michael Servetus was put to death as “heretic,” when Calvin approved the killing for the captured Servetus. Calvin was buried in an unmarked grave in Geneva.]

[About 1545 Michael Servetus (in Spanish, Miguel Serveto, 1511-53) began a correspondence with the French Protestant theologian John Calvin. Although still a nominal Catholic, Servetus described his “heretical” opposition to the concept of the Trinity and requested permission to visit the theocratic city of Geneva. He was arrested while attending church in Geneva, convicted of heresy and blasphemy against Christianity, and burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. Servetus's religious opinions were strongly opposed by Catholics and Protestants of his time. In 1531 he repudiated, in his De Trinitatis Errobus (On the Error of the Trinity), the tripartite personality of God as well as the ritual of baptism. In 1532 he wrote Dialogorum de Trinitate Libri Duo (Second Book of Dialogues on the Trinity). His scientific contributions were also notable; his Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), and written against Calvin’s Christianismi Institutio, was published shortly before his death in 1553, and included the first accurate description of the pulmonary circulatory system. Servetus was a Spanish physician and theologian executed for his beliefs by the Calvinist government of Geneva. He was born in Tudela, Navarra Province. He studied law at the University of Toulouse, medicine at the universities of Paris and Montpellier, and theology at Louvain. Beginning in 1540 he practiced medicine in Vienne, France, where he also served as the personal physician to the archbishop ("Calvin, John"; "Servetus, Michael," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).]

////////////

“The doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity grew by degrees to full maturity.”

Lightfoot’s Works, Vol. II. p. 274.

////////////

If you are not already tired of all the junk adduced to try to justify a deliberate trinitarian pro-Nicene insertion in Mt. 28:19, let’s see some of the more recent “efforts” to support an unbearable position:

“This is the first, and indeed the only place in which the Trinity of persons is expressed in this order, and in the selfsame words... Galatinus (L. 2. c. 1.) pretends, that the ancient Jews used the same way of speaking. It would be well if proof could be made of it: he asserts it to be in Zohar on Deut. 6:4, and in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on Isa. 6:3. In the former he says, it is expressed thus, "hear, O Israel; the Lord", he is called "the Father; our God", he is called the Son; "is one Lord", this is "the Holy Ghost", who proceeds from both; and again, by the same R. Simeon (Ib. c. 11, 12. Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Heb.), it is said, "holy", this is "the Father"; "holy", this is "the Son"; "holy", this is "the Holy Ghost": and in the latter after this manner, "Holy Father, Holy Son, and Holy Holy Ghost"; but no such words are now to be found in either of these places. He affirms, that he himself saw a copy of Jonathan's Targum that had these words... from a book called Gale Razia, he says is, "Father God, Son God, Holy Ghost God, three in one, and one in three;'' ”

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

[If somebody wants to lay a foundation in uncertain (gnostic, esoteric) books of spurious reputation, let him go on with John Gill]

////////////

“The orthodox, as they are termed, have generally considered this text as a decisive proof of the doctrine of the holy Trinity”

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

////////////

“Unless he [Jesus] himself is divine, and the Holy Spirit is divine, Jesus gave a direction substantially the same as this. The form of baptism, therefore, has been always regarded as an unbreakable argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

////////////

“The Father--the Son, and--the Holy Ghost; the one only living and true God”

Family Bible Notes.

////////////

“The word [“Name”] is in the singular, the "name," not names. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the final name of the one true God. It affirms… That He subsists in a personality which is threefold, indicated by relationship as Father and Son; by a mode of being as Spirit; and by the different parts taken by the Godhead in manifestation and in the work of redemption. The conjunction in one name of the Three affirms equality and oneness of substance”

Scofield Reference Notes 1917 Edition.

[All this again, is the theological basis for the trinity, a spurious dogma based on a spurious text promoted by spurious pro-Nicene, Athanasian hands]

////////////

The next are the scriptures used most commonly to prove the doctrine of the trinity (according to the “Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge”) you can see that two of them where spurious insertions of men: Mat. 28:19 and 1 Jn. 5:7-8, while all the rest are errors of understanding and of interpretation, as we have already discussed Gen 1:26 and how Augustine had the task to put together all the scriptures according to his preconceived imaginations laid to him by men to support the doctrine of the trinity. None of those scriptures talk of a theological trinity, all of the trinitarian interpretations laid on them are speculative imaginations and a “blind and ignorant faith”… That’s not what God says!.

Mat. 28:19, Mat. 3:16-17; Gen. 1:26; Num. 6:24-27; Isa. 48:16; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 1 Jn. 5:7-8; Rev. 1:4-6

////////////

“Baptizing them (Calling upon) the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”

Geneva Bible Translation Notes.

////////////

“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost--It should be, "into the name" ”

Jamieson Fausset and Brown Commentary

////////////

“When one is baptized into the name of the trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God”

Vincent's Word Studies.

////////////

"Into the name of" is equivalent to "into the presence of," or "into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit."

The People's New Testament.

////////////

“This Magna Charta of the missionary propaganda... Baptism in (eis, not into) the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Trinity… There is a chapter devoted to this subject in my [Robertson’s] “The Christ of the Logia” in which the genuineness of these words is proven… Trine immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit... For the use of eis with onoma in the sense here employed, not meaning into, See [Robertson’s] note on Mat_10:41. (cf. also Mat_12:41).”

Robertson's Word Pictures.

[So, now we have here two spurious trinitarian “schools of thought”, the “not into’s” leaded by Robertson and his spurious chapter on his spurious (gnostic, masonic, esoteric) book of “The Christ of the Logia” and the “yet into’s” leaded by the trinity integrated by Jamieson Fausset and Brown plus its attachment, Vincent et al, while the Genevans say “neither of both, but we, who are the “called upon’s”, supporters (this is the “pro-trinitarian universe” started by Philo et al, of pseudo-Christianity consecrated as a dogmatic orthodoxy. God first and the eyes of the true believers may be opened to the truth)

////////////

“It is not by any means to be regarded as a regenerating ordinance, though significant of regeneration… The use of water in this ordinance is grounded in part on its qualities as the great element of purification, and on the rites of the ancient dispensation, in which "water and blood: were the divinely appointed symbols of moral renovation and atonement”

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary.

[Being Jesus Christ the end of the law, human baptism was the concluding aspect under the law, as John the Baptist manifested, but now we are no more under any law, but under grace by Christ. Let’s live the life that only Christ wants us to live, not oppressive traditions laid by ambitious and mundane men]

////////////

“The Supper represents the work of Christ, and Baptism the work of the Spirit... in Baptism the work of the Holy Spirit is fully seen in the water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...”

Easton's Bible Dictionary.

[We have here one (Holy Ghost) depending on the other (Holy Spirit) but both being at the same time the same one. Imaginations of which nothing was mentioned by Jesus Christ]

////////////

“Either dipping them in the water, or pouring or sprinkling water upon them, which seems the more proper”

Matthew’s Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible.

[The new baptism is in holy spirit, is to be able to speak in tongues and to manifest Christ in Us, the hope of Glory. The real profitable gift according to God, instead of losing time with controversies on words and rites supported by “religious and sincere men”. By other side, John the Baptist only used immersion. Sprinkling was unknown for him, so never indeed was needed at all]

////////////

“The mode and subjects of baptism being much-controverted subjects, each one can best study them in the works devoted to those questions.”

Smith's Bible Dictionary.

[Yes, this is an intelligent way to escape from discussing the absurdities brought for “wolves in sheep clothes”, so, better we get ready to end with this nonsense, only done as an appendix for those who seek for answers, who want to compare the living waters of the Word of God… with excretions of fooled and fooling men. With which other imaginations and devices are those kinds of “men” going to still deceiving their innocent people to purport the trinitarian Mt. 28:19 as genuine?]

////////////

“>And, naming the Trinity, he breaks the host, which he holds in his hands, into two parts: and the one which is in his left hand he lays down on the disk; with the other, which he holds in his right hand, he signs the chalice, saying:-- The precious blood is signed with the holy body of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost forever.

>And they respond:-- Amen.

>Then he dips it even to the middle in the chalice, and signs with it the body, which is in the paten, saying:-- The holy body is signed with the propitiatory blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost for ever.

>And they respond:-- Amen.”

The Liturgy Of The Blessed Apostles. Composed By “St. Adaeus And St. Maris,” Teachers Of The Easterns / Elucidations.

[The early use of the originals of this liturgy was done in the Alexandrian patriarchate, this shows high trinitarian similarities with the spurios document “The Divine Liturgy Of James, The Holy Apostle And Brother Of The Lord” (and we already saw that Athanasius was the “center-piece” there, and also that almost all the older Bible manuscripts and almost all the volumes of earlier church writers were there). It now seems to be generally admitted that these works are not later than of the fourth century, “although the usual allowance must be made for later textual changes, whether by accident or by design” (as Professor M. B. Riddle stated in point # 3 in his “Preface To The (spurious) Constitutions Of The Holy Apostles”, as Edinburgh editor). This is also the view of Harnack & who, “by a critical analysis and comparison” comes to the conclusion that all these pseudo-writings (also called spurious) were done by “rather worldly-minded” persons (like Athanasius himself, or like Torres Amat, which plagiarized the works of Petisco, etc., or like the writer of the core of the “Constitutions Of The Holy Apostles” (an anonymous document redundantly trinitarian), “an anti-ascetic Bishop of Syria, a friend of the Emperor Constantius from 340 - 360 A.D.”); that they enlarged the anonymous works containing such doctrines, including the trinitarian doctrine, which then spread “as doth a canker (2 Tim 2:17),” and which is found “as earlier” as in the Didache [the Instructor] at the end of the first or beginning of the second century (that even that has been shown to be a spuriously partially adulterated text), as well as in the Ignatian Epistles (that we have seen to be spurious also), and that “those men adapted them to their own view of morals, worship and discipline, and clothed them with Apostolic authority.”]

& Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma, 4 Vols. Trans. from 3rd German ed. by Neil Buchanan, N.Y. Dover Publications, 1961.

[Harnack, Adolf von (1851-1930), leading German Protestant theologian and historian, whose critical views were a major influence in late 19th- and early 20th-century theology. Appointed professor extraordinary of church history at the University of Leipzig in 1876, Harnack traced the evolution [departure, apostasy] of the early church from biblical Christianity, [that the catholic church] he claimed, had been corrupted by the introduction of Greek metaphysics. Harnack advocated a return to the simple faith of the original Gospel, but his distrust of the institutional church, creeds, dogmas, and sacraments provoked the opposition of “much more conservative scholars”. Harnack's best-known works include the multi-volume Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1886-90; trans. History of Dogma, 1894-99) and Das Wesen des Christentums (1900; trans. What Is Christianity?, 1901) ("Harnack, Adolf von," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

ETC…

[References taken mainly from: The Early Church Fathers Series in WinHelp Format, a 37-volume electronic collection of writings from the first 800 years of the Church. Programmed in WinHelp by: Maged Nabih Kamel, MD, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7084]

--------------------------------------

Col 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

2Cor 10:5: Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

1Tim 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Some expressions in early writers that include “philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world”, a “high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God”, as represented by the words “holy trinity” (used at least 149 times by early “religious” writers):

The spurious “Early Liturgies--The Divine Liturgy Of James, The Holy Apostle And Brother Of The Lord… Then the Deacon begins to sing in the entrance. Thou who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who didst submit for our salvation to become flesh of the holy God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary; who didst immutably become man and was crucified, O Christ our God and didst by Thy death tread death under foot; who art one of the Holy Trinity glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.”

In other spurious document, “The Stromata, Or Miscellanies: Rest Of Book V. Chap. Xiv.--Greek Plagiarism From The Hebrews. …"Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third," I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant…”

Spurious document, “A Commentary On The [Spurious] Apostles' Creed”. This exposition of the Creed was made at the request of Laurentius, a Bishop whose see is unknown, but is conjectured by Fontanini, in his life of Rufinus, to have been Concordia, Rufinus' birthplace (written about 307-309), “48. If then we have understood in what august significance God Almighty is called Father, and in what mysterious sense our Lord Jesus Christ is held to be His only Son, and with what entire perfection of meaning His Spirit is called the Holy Spirit, and how the Holy Trinity is one in substance but has distinctions of relation and of Persons”

Part II.--Dubious Or Spurious Writings (once attributed to one “Gregory Thaumaturgus”). A Sectional Confession Of Faith. V. …we must also not number what is sanctified with what sanctifies; even as no object that is made can be numbered with the Trinity, but in the name of the Holy Trinity baptism and invocation and worship are administered… VII. But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons…XX. …And that the holy Trinity is to be worshipped without either separation or alienation… XXI. …here again the saint has defined the holy Trinity, naming God, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost. XXIII. …Wherefore the holy Trinity is believed to be one God…”; “On The Trinity. Fragment From The Discourse. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Caesareia in Pontus, near successor of the apostles, in his discourse on the Trinity, speaks thus: -- All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity... Neither were there two natures, but only one nature of the Holy Trinity before the incarnation of the Word, the Son; and the nature of the Trinity remained one also after the incarnation of the Son. But if any one, moreover, believes that any increment has been given to the Trinity by reason of the assumption of humanity by the Word, he is an alien from us, and from the ministry of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the perfect, holy, Apostolic faith of the holy God. Praise to the Holy Trinity forever through the ages of the ages. Amen. [Elucidation. Petavius, to whom the translator refers his readers, may be trusted in points where he has no theory of his own to sustain, but must always be accepted with caution. The Greek Fathers in this very series, from Justin onward, enable us to put the later terminology to the test of earlier exposition (examples in the notes to the Praxeas of Tertullian) [this is the way in which some attempt to validate spurious trinitarian untenable documents]]”

“Gennadius: List Of The Authors Whom Gennadius Added, After The Death Of The Blessed Jerome. Chapter XII. Theodorus, presbyter of the church at Antioch… wrote… On the incarnation of the Lord, fifteen books containing as many as fifteen thousand verses … [that] the Lord Jesus had a plenitude of deity, so he had a plenitude of humanity… also that man consists only of two substances, soul and body and that sense and spirit are not different substances, but inherent inborn faculties of the soul through which it is inspired and has rationality and through which it makes the body capable of feeling. Moreover the fourteenth book of this work treats wholly of the uncreated and alone incorporeal and ruling nature of the holy Trinity and of the rationality of animals, which he explains in a devotional spirit… In the fifteenth volume he confirms and fortifies the whole body of his work by citing the traditions of the fathers”; “Chapter XXVI. Isaac wrote On the Holy Trinity and a book On the incarnation of the Lord, writing in a very obscure style of argument and involved language…”; “Chapter XXVII. Ursinus the monk wrote… that after the simple confession of the Holy Trinity and of Christ, the imposition of the hands of the catholic priest is sufficient for salvation”; “Chapter LXVI. Syagrius wrote On faith, against the presumptuous words, which heretics assume for the purpose of destroying or superseding the names of the Holy Trinity…”

The Extant Works And Fragments Of Hippolytus: Part Ia.—Exegetical, Another Fragment. St. Hippolytus on Prov. ix. 1, "Wisdom hath builded her house." …"And she hath furnished her table:" that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity…”

Again, only in the heading of Tertullian’s “VII. Against Praxeas; In Which He [Tertullian] Defends, In All Essential Points, The Doctrine Of The Holy Trinity.”

“Jerome's letter To Pammachius Against John Of Jerusalem 15. …God, that is, the Holy Trinity…”

“Rufinus' (Tyrannius Rufinus) Apology. Book I. …13. In the Preface to the Apology of Pamphilus, after a few other remarks, I said: 'What the opinions of Origen are may be gathered from the tenor of this treatise. But as for those things in which he is found to contradict himself [Origen seem to contradict himself, first of all because all the editing hands that tampered with his own writings, being one of that hands Rufinus himself], I will point out how this has come to pass in a few words which I have added at the close of this Preface As for us, we believe what has been delivered to us by the holy Prophets, namely: that the holy Trinity is coeternal, and is of one power and substance..." ”

“The Epistles Of “Pope” Callistus The Second Epistle. To All The Bishops Of Gaul. (Of Conspiracies And Other Illicit Pursuits, That They Be Not Engaged In, And Of The Restoration Of The Lapped After Penitence.) III. (That no bishop should presume in anything pertaining to another's parish, and of the transference of bishops) …with one mind, and one mouth, and one accord, the Holy Trinity may be glorified for ever...”

[“Callistus or Calixtus I (circa 160-c. 222), pope (c. 217-c. 222), whose pontificate was the first to be opposed by an antipope. A Roman by birth, Callistus was originally a slave. His first appearance in history was in connection with fraudulent banking operations, after which he was sentenced to work (c. 186-89) in the Sardinian mines. Upon his return to Rome, he was ordained a deacon and appointed chief adviser to Pope Zephyrinus. One of the principal accomplishments of Callistus as archdeacon was the establishment on the Appian Way of the Cemetery of Callistus, a shrine of martyrs where all 3rd-century popes but him are buried. As pope, Callistus was opposed by Hippolytus, an antipope who accused him of Monarchianism, a doctrine that denied personal distinctions in the Godhead (the catholic Trinity). He was also accused of laxity for admitting repentant adulterers to Holy Communion” ("Callistus," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

Heading of Sermon, “Leo The Great. Sermon LXXVII (On Whitsuntide, III.) I. The Holy Ghost's work did not begin at Pentecost, but was continued because the Holy Trinity is One in action and in will.”

[“Leo I, called The Great (circa 400-61), pope (440-61), the greatest administrator of the ancient church, who established the primacy of the bishop of Rome over other bishops. He concentrated on creating a strong central government in the church and suppressing heresy. When Bishop Hilary of Arles challenged Leo in a synod in Rome, Leo had him confined to his diocese by imperial decree. Leo's definition of the “two natures” (divine and human) of Christ in his Tome (449), his doctrinal letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, was endorsed by the council with the famous words “Peter has spoken through Leo”. His great administrative accomplishment was to conjoin ecclesiastical procedures and papal primacy with Roman law. Leo was proclaimed a doctor of the church in 1574” ("Leo I, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

“Register Of The Epistles Of Gregory “The Great”, Book II, Epistle LIV. Here follows the Epistle of Saint Licinianus, bishop, concerning the Book of Rules, addressed to Saint Gregory, pope of the city of Rome. …May God the Holy Trinity vouchsafe to preserve your crown unharmed…”, and “Book IV. Epistle XXXI. To Theodorus, Physician. Gregory to Theodorus, Physician to the Emperor. …I have some complaint against the most sweet disposition of my most glorious son the lord Theodorus; namely that he has received from the holy Trinity the gift of genius, the gift of wealth, the gift of mercy and charity, and yet is unceasingly bound up in secular causes, is occupied in continual processions, and neglects to read daily the words of his Redeemer…”; “Book VII Epistle V. To Cyriacus, Bishop. …Now may the Holy Trinity protect you with His hand…”

“Selected Epistles Of “Saint” Gregory The Great, Book XI. Epistle I. To John, Abbot. Gregory to John, Abbot of Mount Sina. May the Holy Trinity protect… Epistle XIII. To Serenus, Bishop Of Massilia. (Marseilles). …But let thy Fraternity carefully admonish them that from the sight of the event portrayed they should catch the ardour of compunction, and bow themselves down in adoration of the One Almighty Holy Trinity [only place in which the expression “Almighty Holy Trinity” appears]… Epistle LXVII. To Quiricus, Bishop, &C. …heretics … who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity … these, when they come to holy Church, are baptized, because what they received while in their error, not being in the name of the Holy Trinity, was not baptism … had not been given in the name of the Trinity. But the Nestorians, since they are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity--though darkened by the error of their heresy in that, after the manner of Jewish unbelief, they believe not the Incarnation of the Only-begotten… are to be taught… our Lord God Jesus Christ … Now may the Holy Trinity keep you…”; “Book XIII, Epistle VII. To Theoderic, King Of The Franks. …May the Holy Trinity make you to advance always in His fear…Epistle XXXVIII. To Phocas, Emperor. …may the Holy Trinity guard your life for many years, so that we may the longer rejoice in the good of your Piety, which we have received after long waiting.”

[“Gregory I, “the Great” (circa 540-604), pope (590-604). Born in Rome into a patrician family, Gregory was the son of a senator and the great-grandson of Pope Felix III (reigned 483-92). With these powerful connections, he easily rose in the civil service to become prefect of Rome in 570. Under Gregory, the papacy assumed political leadership in Italy and consolidated its lands throughout the country into a single unit, which later became the foundation of the Papal States. Gregory upheld Rome's traditional claims of ecclesiastical primacy over the patriarch of Constantinople, as well as over the other bishops of the church. He also took great interest in the liturgy, introducing a number of reforms. He is credited with incorporating Gregorian chant into the liturgy. In 597 Gregory sent to England the prior of his own monastery of St. Andrew, St. Augustine of Canterbury, along with 40 monks. The great success of this mission led to an enduring sense of loyalty to the papacy among the English, and English missionaries to the Continent encouraged this loyalty among almost all the peoples of northern Europe. Gregory wrote the Dialogues, principally a collection of legends about saints from Gregory's own time. A unique source of information about St. Benedict, it was partly responsible for the popularity of Benedictine monasticism in the Middle Ages, and its emphasis on miracles set the pattern for the medieval conception of “sainthood” ” ("Gregory I, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta]

“The Ecclesiastical History--By Socrates Scholasticus, “Book I. Chapter V. The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop. Alexander...in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery- the UNITY of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan… took the opposite opinion …”; “Book II. Chapter XIX. …Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy Creed. Believing, therefore, in the altogether perfect and most holy Trinity, and asserting that the Father is God, and that the Son also is God, we do not acknowledge two Gods, but one only, on account of the majesty of the Deity…”; “Book VI. Chapter VIII. …The Arians and the Supporters of the 'Homoousion' hold Nocturnal Assemblies and sing Antiphonal Hymns, a Species of Composition ascribed to Ignatius, surnamed Theophorus. Conflict between the Two Parties…Ignatius third bishop of Antioch in Syria from the apostle Peter, who also had held intercourse with the apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels hymning in alternate chants the Holy Trinity. Chapter XIII. The Author's Defense of Origen….yet have never charged him [at the moment of writing this, but not later] with holding unsound views respecting the holy Trinity…”

Other early “users” of the expression “Holy Trinity” are: Basil’s “Letters (used 8 times); Gregory Nazianzen, Orations (used 4 times); The Life And Writings Of Gregory Of Nyssa (used at least 31 times); Athanasius’ “Tomus Ad Antiochenos (Tome Or Synodal Letter To The People Of Antioch) Tome Or Synodal Letter To The People Of Antioch (used 6 times); Augustin’s “The Seven Books Of Augustin, Bishop Of Hippo, On Baptism, Against The Donatists. Book IV, and Augustin’s “Sermons On Selected Lessons Of The New Testament. Sermon II. Of The Words Of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chap. III. 13; and “The Three Books Of Augustin, Bishop Of Hippo In Answer To The Letters Of Petilian, The Donatist, Bishop Of Cirta (Book III) Chap. 51.--63 (one time on each, 3 times in total); John Of Damascus: An Exact Exposition Of The Orthodox Faith (used 16 times); Theodoret, “Dialogues--The "Eranistes" Or "Polymorphus" Of The Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop Of Cyrus (6 times) and his Ecclesiastical History Of Theodoret, Book IV (5 times); Cyril Of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XVI (2 times); The “Seventh” Ecumenical Council. The Second Council Of Nice. A.D. 787 (9 times, twice as “Most Holy Trinity”); The “Sixth” Ecumenical Council. The Third Council Of Constantinople. A.D. 680-681 (6 times, being one of them the peculiar expression “fire Holy Trinity”); The “Fifth” Ecumenical Council. The Second Council Of Constantinople. A.D. 553 (4 times); The Ecclesiastical History Of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus, Book VII. Chap. V.--Gregory, The Theologian, Receives From Theodosius The Government Of The Churches. Expulsion Of Demophilus, And Of All Who Deny That The Son Is "Con-Substantial" With The Father (4 times); The “Third” Ecumenical Council. The Council Of Ephesus. A.D. 431 (2 times); And one time each: Synod Of Laodicea, Historical Introduction & Canons. A.D. 343-381. Notes. Ancient Epitome Of Canon VII; The Canons Of The 318 Holy Fathers Assembled In The City Of Nice, In Bithynia. Notes. Hefele; The Canons Of The CCXVII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled At Carthage. Commonly Called. The Code Of Canons Of The African Church. A.D. 419. Canon II.

ETC…

To see other complex trinitarian expressions go to the end of quotations.

PAGAN INITIATION THROUGH THE MYSTERY OF WATER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF THE MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY:

THE “MYSTERY” OF THE TRINITY:

The Ecclesiastical History--By Socrates Scholasticus, Book I. Chapter V.
The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.

…to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery- the UNITY of the Holy Trinity…

[Philosophies of men against the pure Bible, can that be seen more clearly?]

The Life And Writings Of Gregory Of Nyssa (In: Schaff, P. And Wace, H., Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume V, Edinburgh: T&T Clark)

Chapter I. A Sketch Of The Life Of Gregory Of Nyssa.

…his faith on the [Athanasian] subject of the Trinity and the Incarnation… He is one of the hundred and fifty Bishops summoned by Theodosius to the second (Ecumenical Council, that of Constantinople, A.D. 381. To the assembled Fathers he brings an installment of his treatise against the Eunomian heresy, which he had written in defense of his brother Basil's positions, on the subject of the Trinity and the Incarnation…

Chapter II. His General Character As A Theologian.

…when he is convinced that Plato will confirm doctrine he will, even in polemic treatises, adopt his view; for instance, he seeks to grasp the truth of the Trinity from the Platonic account of our internal consciousness, i.e. yukh, logoV, nouV, because such a proof from consciousness is, to Gregory, the surest and most reliable… With a turn resembling the view of Tertullian, he comes back to the conclusion that for us after all Religious Truth consists in mystery…

II. …the vital importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, upon which Gregory laboured for so many years, thus all comes from Baptism)… This way of explaining the mystery of the Sacrament, i.e. from the way bread was changed into the Word [the catholic transubstantiation] when Christ was upon earth…

Chapter III. His Origenism.

…the more careful definitions also of the Trinity now embodied in the creeds [all based on the spurious “apostles’ creed”]… Amongst the defenders of the Creed of Nicaea, Gregory, we know, stands well-nigh foremost. In his long and numerous treatises on the Trinity he employs every possible argument and illustration to show the contents of the substance of the Deity… the needs of the Faith in the Trinity daily growing more exact and clear… Origen never had the occasion to employ this language in explaining the mystery of the Trinity. Gregory is the first “Father” who has done so. He finds a key to it in the [Platonioc] triple nature of our soul (yukh, logoV, nouV)...this instance illustrate trinity in unity…

Chapter IV. 13.

…in professing to expound the mystery of the Faith, he [Eunomius] corrects as it were the expressions in the Gospel, and will not make use of the words by which our Lord in perfecting our faith conveyed that mystery to us: he [Eunomius] suppresses the names of 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost…

[Eunomius did good on this, as striving to quote the original texts as they where]

18. He [Eunomius] has no reason for distinguishing a plurality of beings in the Trinity…

19. …who does not know that, to be exact, simplicity in the case of the Holy Trinity admits of no degrees…

23. … by [the Seraphim] the mystery of the Trinity was luminously proclaimed, when they uttered that marvellous cry "Holy," being awestruck With the beauty in each Person of the Trinity…

24. …To suppose that within the Holy Trinity there is a difference as wide [as Eunomius says] as that which we can observe between the heavens which envelope the whole creation, and one single man or the star which shines in them, is openly profane: but still the connection of such thoughts and the pertinence of such a comparison is a mystery…

28. …if he [Eunomius] had an eye only on the doctrine of the truth, and if the order in which be counts the differences was only that of the attributes which Faith sees in the Holy Trinity,--an order so 'natural' and 'germane' that the Persons cannot be confounded, being divided as Persons, though united in their being--then he would not have been classed at all amongst our enemies, for he would mean the very same doctrine that we teach…

Note On AgennhtoV (Ungenerate).

…As in all other dichotomies arising from privative terms (i.e. Imperishable, Unending, Uncreate, &c.), the Trinity stands apart from creation, so in this last dichotomy the First Person stands apart from the Second and the Third…

Letters Of Augustin (Including Replies To Questions Of Januarius). Letter LIV. (A.D. 400.) Styled also Book I. of Replies to Questions of Januarius.
To His Beloved Son Januarius, Augustin Sends Greeting In The Lord.

Chap. I. -- 1… baptism solemnized in the name of the Trinity, the communion of His body and blood [the catholic heathen abomination of the transubstantiation], and such other things as are prescribed…

Letter LV. (A.D. 400.) Or Book II. of Replies to Questions of Januarius.
Chap. XVII.--31. …[the symbol of the Trinity] to make the holy mystery more apparent… combination of symbols, a wonderful mystery…

Augustin’s Treatise On Faith And The Creed. [De Fide Et Symbolo.] (In One Book)

Chap. 9.--Of The Holy Spirit And The Mystery Of The Trinity.

16. …consubstantial and co-eternal: for this Trinity is one… it is this same Trinity that is signified when an apostle says, "For of Him, and in Him, and through Him, are all things"… in the case of this trinity we use the name water [for the whole]…

Augustin’s Reply To Faustus The Manichaean. [Contra Faustum Manichaeum.] (A.D. 400) Book XX.

6. …to these filthy rags of yours [Faustus’] you would unite the mystery of the Trinity…

Augustin’s Lectures Or Tractates On The Gospel According To St. John. Tractate

Tractate IX.

7. … If He had simply said "three apiece," our mind would at once have run to the mystery of the Trinity… when I say three apiece, I declare the same Trinity more plainly.

XXXIX

5. …the mystery of the Trinity…

Tractate CXXII

8 …the mystery of the Trinity; while, again, the number of fifty is made up by multiplying 7 by 7, with the addition of 1, for 7 times 7 make 49. And the 1 is added to show that there is one who is expressed by seven on account of His sevenfold operation; and we know that it was on the fiftieth day after our Lord's ascension that the Holy Spirit was sent…

Augustin’s On The Trinity, Book I

36. …the mystery, pure and undefiled, of the Trinity which regenerates us has been fixed in terms of saving precision…

The Seven Books Of John Cassian On The Incarnation Of The Lord -- Against Nestorius. Book I. Chapter II.

Description of the different heretical monsters, which spring from one another. …after him in time though like him in wickedness came Eunomius, who, though allowing that the Persons of the Holy Trinity were divine and like each other, yet insisted that they were separate from each other…”

Book I. Chapter V.

…the Only Begotten was incarnate through that hidden mystery which He alone understands (for it is ours to believe: His to understand)…

Book II. Chapter II.
Proof that the Virgin Mother of God was not only Christotocos but also Theotocos, and that Christ is truly God.

…you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning [that is opposite to all the numerous treatises written by them through their philosophies and reasonings, as Alexander, Augustin and Gregory of Nyssa clearly exemplify]… human weakness was not insufficient for the consummation of the ineffable mystery of the holy conception, since it was supported by the Divine overshadowing… in the mystery of the holy conception the whole Trinity might cooperate … the mystery of this great secret, the majesty of God shall therefore come upon thee completely…

Book III. Chapter III.

... the mystery of the perfect faith…the whole mystery of the Incarnation, and of His perfect Divinity…the mystery of God born in flesh…

Book III. Chapter IV.

… was sent by God the Father and God the Son; in whom owing to the mystery of the sacred and ineffable generation there are two Persons (He who begets, and He who is begotten), but there is but one single Power of God who is the sender…

[“Cassian, John, also called Johannes Eremita or Johannes Massiliensis (360-435), early monk and theologian. After spending perhaps 15 years among the ascetics of the Egyptian deserts, he studied in Constantinople with St. John Chrysostom, by whom he was ordained a deacon and brought Eastern monasticism to the West. Cassian was one of the first of the Semi-Pelagians, who rejected the view of the Latin Father St. Augustine that humankind generally is damned by the sin of Adam and that some souls are saved purely through the grace of God, which cannot be earned. He also opposed the Augustinian concept of moral choice in attaining salvation” ("Cassian, John," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]

The Letters Of Jerome: Letter LXIX. To Oceanus.

6. …After His resurrection also, when sending His apostles to the Gentiles, He commands them to baptize these in the mystery of the Trinity…

Jerome’s Dialogue Against The Luciferians.

15. …neither the centurion nor that poor woman who for twelve years was wasting away with a bloody flux, had believed in the mysteries of the Trinity, for these were revealed to the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ; so that the faith of such as believe in the mystery of the Trinity might have its due preeminence… I do not mean to imply that anything is greater than the purity of heart, which believes that mystery…

[Jerome uses both “the mysteries of the Trinity” and “mystery of the Trinity”, but is necessary a “pure heart” to blindly believe on such philosophical mystery instead of believing in the Bible itself? I must say that a “deceived heart that never reads the Bible” is the one that believes on such catholic “mysteries”]

A Commentary On The Spurious Apostles' Creed To Laurentius, A Bishop whose see is unknown.

35. …the mystery of His Incarnation and… the mystery of the Trinity…

Origen’s De Principiis (according to the spurious tampering of Rufinus)-- Rest Of Book IV [Summary (Of Doctrine) Regarding The Father, The Son, And The Holy Spirit

30. …the mystery of the entire Trinity was (concerned) in the creation of all things, says: "By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth"…

39. …They, therefore, who were taught above to believe in one God, under the mystery of the Trinity, must believe this also, that there is one holy Church in which there is one faith and one baptism…

[The Biblical unity is within the truths of the Bible itself, not according to men’s religions, philosophies or opinions]

XI.--Fragments Found In Greek Only In The Oxford Edition.

Macarius Chrysocephalus: Parable Of The Prodigal Son, Luke XV. Oration On Luke XV., Towards The Close.

6. …"And put a ring on his hand." Here is the mystery of the Trinity; which is the seal impressed on those who believe…

The Commonitory Of Vincent Of Lerins For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies. Chapter XlII.
The [Athanasian] Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation explained.

… But the Catholic Church, holding the right faith both concerning God and concerning our Saviour, is guilty of blasphemy neither in the mystery of the Trinity, nor in that of the Incarnation of Christ. For she worships both one Godhead in the plenitude of the Trinity, and the equality of the Trinity in one and the same majesty…

Chapter XVI. Recapitulation of what was said of the Catholic Faith and of divers Heresies…

…the mystery of the Trinity…

THE “MYSTERY” OF THE TRINITARIAN WATER BAPTISM:

Basil’s Treatise De Spiritu Sancto

Chapter XV.

Reply to the suggested objection that we are baptized "into water." Also concerning baptism.

34. …In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed…

Augustin’s On The Trinity, Book XI

1. … whole mystery of the baptism…

Augustin: The Enchiridion (On Faith, Hope, And Love)

Chap. 52.-- In Baptism, Which Is The Similitude Of The Death And Resurrection Of Christ, All, Both Infants And Adults, Die To Sin That They May Walk In Newness Of Life.

…the great mystery of holy baptism…

Augustin’s Reply To Faustus The Manichaean. [Contra Faustum Manichaeum.] A.D. 400

Book XII.

19. …a profound mystery in baptism,--the sacrament of our regeneration…

21. … and the hidden mystery… denoted the completion of the rite of baptism…

Augustin’s Sermons On Selected Lessons Of The New Testament. Sermon XLIX. On The Words Of The Gospel, Luke VII. 37, "And Behold, A Woman Who Was In The City, A Sinner," Etc. On The Remission Of Sins, Against The Donatists.

Sermon XLIX. [XCIX. BEN.]

11. …the mystery and sacrament of Baptism…

[Note: “Mystery” and “Sacrament” mean the same, one being Greek and the other Latin]

The Seven Books Of Augustin, Bishop Of Hippo, On Baptism, Against The Donatists

Book IV. Chap. 22.

…the celebration of the mystery of baptism…

Three Books On The Holy Spirit -- By Ambrose Bishop Of Milan To The Emperor Gratian, Book I

1. …predestined mystery of the future Incarnation…

5. …the mystery of the cross…

15. …Good is the mystery of humility… But all were not able to exhaust this mystery… This is a great mystery, which no one knew … This, I say, is a divine mystery, which even they who wash will enquire into. It is not, then, the simple water of the heavenly mystery whereby we attain to be found worthy of having part with Christ.

42. …baptism is complete if one confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you deny One you overthrow the whole. And just as if you mention in words One only, either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and in your belief do not deny either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, the mystery of the faith is complete, so, too, although you name the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and lessen the power of either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, the whole mystery is made empty…

43. …the mystery is complete through the oneness of the Name, and the Spirit is not separated from the baptism of Christ, since John baptized unto repentance …

44. …the sacrament of baptism in the Name of Christ was complete, so, too, when the Holy Spirit alone is named, anything is wanting to the completeness of the mystery…

45. …The work is one, for the mystery is one; the baptism one…

77. And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: "The water, the blood, and the Spirit." One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit.

108. O the divine mystery of that cross…

114. Lastly that we may know that this mystery of the common redemption was most clearly revealed by the prophets…

115. But even if the Seraph had taken away sin, it would have been as one of the ministers of God appointed to this mystery. For thus said Isaiah: "For one of the Seraphim was sent to me."

116. The Spirit, also, is indeed said to be sent, but the Seraph to one, the Spirit to all. The Seraph is sent to minister, the Spirit works a mystery.

165. … in that mystery the Lord was showing that He would come to illuminate the thorns of our body…

Selections From The Hymns And Homilies Of Ephraim The Syrian, Fifteen Hymns For The Feast Of The Epiphany

VIII. (RESP.--Happy are ye whose bodies have been made to shine!)

4. … The captive priests again in the well--hid and concealed the fire of the sanctuary, --a mystery of that glorified fire--which the High priest mingles in Baptism.- The priests took up of the mire,--and on the altar they sprinkled it;--for its fire, the fire of that well,--with the mire had been mingled;--a mystery of our bodies which in the water--with the fire of the Holy Spirit have been mingled…

16. In the beginning the Spirit that brooded--moved on the waters; they conceived and gave birth--to serpents and fishes and birds.--The Holy Spirit has brooded in Baptism,--and in mystery has given birth to eagles,--Virgins and Prelates;--and in mystery has given birth to fishes,--celibates and intercessors; and in mystery of serpents,--lo! the subtle have become simple as doves!

[We can see here the private interpretations of Ephraim equating “eagles” to “Virgins and Prelates”, “fishes” to “celibates and intercessors”, and without giving his particular equivalent to “serpents”, and all of it done “in mystery”. This is the hidden mingling of “that old serpent” within the orthodox catholic rituals]

Leo “The Great”, Letter CLXVI To Neo, Bishop Of Ravenna.

I. Those, who being taken captives in infancy cannot remember or bring witnesses of their baptism, must not be denied this sacrament.

…the healing waters of baptism, but in the ignorance of infancy cannot remember whether they have received the mystery and rites of baptism…the rites of the Lord's mystery…the sacrament of baptism…

Leo “The Great”, Sermon XXI. On The Feast Of The Nativity I.

II. The mystery of the Incarnation…

III. …By the mystery of Baptism thou were made the temple of the Holy Ghost…

Sermon XXIV. On The Feast Of The Nativity, IV.

III. We all became partakers in the Birth of Christ, by the re-birth of baptism.

Anonymous Treatise On Re-Baptism

18. …in the beginning of the mystery of the faith and of spiritual baptism, the same Spirit was manifestly seen to have sat upon the disciples as it had been fire…

Synod Of Laodicea. A.D. 343-381.Balsamon.

…the mystery of baptism… remission of sins, which comes to us in holy baptism…

The use of the heathen word “INITIATION” (in association to the word “Mystery”) by early church writers:

Introduction: Pagan’s Counterfeit of the spiritual BAPTISM Today. "In certain sacred rites of the heathen," referring to the worship of Isis (the Egyptian goddess corresponding to Semiramis), and Mithra (the Greek god corresponding to Nimrod as Mediator), "the mode of initiation is by baptism" (Tertullian's De Baptismo, vol. i, p.1204) The term "initiation" clearly shows that it was the Mysteries of these divinities to which he referred (Satan's Great Deception by Dr. C. Paul Meredith).

Tertullian On Baptism. Chap. V.--Use Made Of Water By The Heathen… “ "Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy"… For washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites--of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters... Are there not other cases too, in which, without any sacrament, unclean spirits brood on waters, in spurious imitation of that brooding of the Divine Spirit in the very beginning? Witness all shady founts, and all unfrequented brooks, and the ponds in the baths, and the conduits in private houses, or the cisterns and wells, which are said to have the property of "spiriting away," through the power, that is, of a hurtful spirit…. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men… The guilt being removed, of course the penalty is removed too. Thus man will be restored for God to His "likeness," who in days bygone had been conformed to "the image" of God; (the "image" is counted (to be) in his form: the "likeness" in his eternity) for he receives again that Spirit of God which he had then first received from His afflatus, but had afterward lost through sin”

The Works Of Dionysius. Extant Fragments. Part II

Epistle IX.--To Sixtus II

…this baptism by which he had been initiated among heretics…

The Book Of Ambrose, Bishop Of Milan, Concerning The Mysteries. Chapter I.

2. The season now warns us to speak of the Mysteries, and to set forth the purport of the sacraments, which if we had thought it well to teach before baptism to those who were not yet initiated, we should be considered rather to have betrayed than to have portrayed the Mysteries…

Chapter IV… Christ at His baptism… the meaning of this mystery is explained…

The Life And Writings Of Gregory Of Nyssa, Book XI

5. (…the deliverance to us of the means of initiation constitutes a law),--he [Eunomius] says that baptism is not into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…

Gregory Nazianzen, “Orations” XXXIX and XL (On The Holy Lights And On Holy Baptism)

Introduction.

…the Mystery of our Lord's Baptism…

Oration XXII. …others even before they were illuminated were worthy of praise; partly by nature, and partly by the care with which they prepared themselves for Baptism. These after their initiation became evidently better, and less liable to fall; in the one case with a view to procuring good, and in the other in order to preserve it.

Jerome’s Dialogue Against The Luciferians

12. L. … It is ridiculous to assert that any one can dispute concerning the faith before he believes it; that he understands a mystery before he has been initiated; that the baptizer and the baptized hold different views…

The Ecclesiastical History Of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus, Book II.

Chap. XVII. -- On The Death Of Alexander, Bishop Of Alexandria, At His Suggestion, Athanasius Receives The Throne; And An Account Of His Youth; How He Was A Self-Taught Priest, And Beloved By Antony… when Alexander threatened them with torture [Note of the Editor: we see here the “terrorist” nature of the Alexander that promoted the trinity, and of his religious “hyper-terrorist” son, Athanasius, the ‘champion” of deceiving doctrines], they confessed that Athanasius was their bishop and leader, and that many children who had not been initiated had been baptized by him…

Chap. XXVI.--Erection Of A Temple By Constantine The Great At Golgotha, In Jerusalem; Its Dedication. “THE temple, called the "Great Martyrium," which was built in the place of the skull at Jerusalem, was completed about the thirtieth year of the reign of Constantine… costliness and magnificence is such that they cannot be looked upon without exciting wonder. Since that period the anniversary of the consecration has been celebrated with great pomp by the church of Jerusalem; the festival continues eight days, initiation by baptism is administered, and people from every region under the sun resort to Jerusalem during this festival, and visit the sacred places”

Chap. XXXIV. -- Death Of Constantine The Great; He Died After Baptism …His malady, however, increased, and he went to Nicomedia, and was initiated into holy baptism in one of the suburbs of that city…

Book VII. Chap. IV. -Reign Of Theodosius The Great; He Was Initiated Into Divine Baptism By Ascholius, Bishop Of Thessalonica. The Letters He Addressed To Those Who Did Not Hold The Definition Of The Council Of Nice.

… and after receiving instruction from Ascholius, the bishop, he was initiated…

Chap. VIII. -- Election Of Nectarius To The See Of Constantinople; His Birthplace And Education.

…When they heard that he [Nectarius] had not been initiated their amazement was increased at the decision of the emperor… It appears reasonable to suppose, that on perceiving that Nectarius was of advanced age, he took it for granted that he had been initiated long previously… For when the emperor was informed that Nectarius had not been initiated, he remained of the same opinion, although opposed by many priests. When at last, consent had been given to the imperial mandate, Nectarius was initiated, and while yet clad in his initiatory robes, was proclaimed bishop of Constantinople by the unanimous voice of the Synod…

The Ecclesiastical History--By Socrates Scholasticus, Rest Of Book II

Chapter XXXVIII.
Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him.

…they laid hold of women and children, and compelled them to be initiated [by baptism]; and if any one resisted or otherwise spoke against it, stripes immediately followed, and after the stripes, bonds and imprisonment, and other violent measures…

Spurious Constitutions Of The Holy Apostles.

Book III. Concerning The Sacred Initiation Of Holy Baptism.

XVI. Thou therefore, O bishop, according to that type, shalt anoint the head of those that are to be baptized, whether they be men or women, with the holy oil... after that, either thou, O bishop, or a presbyter that is under thee, shall in the solemn form name over them the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and shall dip them in the water; and let a deacon receive the man, and a deaconess the woman, that so the conferring of this inviolable seal may take place with a becoming decency. And after that, let the bishop anoint those that are baptized with ointment.

Book VI

That We Ought Not To Rebaptize, Nor To Receive That Baptism Which Is Given By The Ungodly, Which Is Not Baptism, But A Pollution.
XV. … Nor indeed are those that are baptized by them initiated, but are polluted… that attempt to baptize those already initiated crucify the Lord afresh…

Book VII

Concerning The Christian Life, And The Eucharist, And The Initiation Into Christ.

Sec. II.- A Constitution Of Our Lord, How We Ought To Baptize, And Into Whose Death.
XXII. …he who is to be initiated into His death ought first to fast, and then to be baptized…

A Mystical Thanksgiving.
XXXV. …Let no one eat of these things that is not initiated; but those only who have been baptized into the death of the Lord. But if any one that is not initiated conceal himself, and partake…

Sec. III.-- On The Instruction Of Catechumens, And Their Initiation Into Baptism.
…Now, after what manner those ought to live that are initiated into Christ…

A Constitution How The Catechumens Are To Be Blessed By The Priests In Their Initiation, And What Things Are To Be Taught Them.
XLII… the candidate for baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation …

[As we have seen, everything else, except, by totally ignoring it, “The Mystery of God Revealed to Us, the Members of the Body of Christ Today”, was qualified as a mystery or a sacrament (that also means mystery), or redundantly, by using both terms by catholic “brains”, even in the “holy rosary” they pass through the “holy mysteries”, Ambrose wrote a full book on “Mysteries”, and others also wrote profusely on the “sacred mysteries”, but there is no mystery that those were vain philosophies of men…(to see the first documents on the re-discover of the Real Mystery Revealed Already by God, go to: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc2/mystery.htm) ]

To go to the main text: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/in-my-name.htm



Appendix 4

Rubenstein, R. E. in When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, in p. 231 concludes his book saying:

“Soon, most of the Eastern world would come under the domination of a new religion offering another interpretation of Jesus’ nature and mission. The Islamic Jesus was not the incarnate God of Nicene Christianity or the super-angelic Son of the Arians. In the view of the Muslim conquerors, he was a divinely inspired man: a spiritual genius ranking with the greatest prophets, Moses and Muhammad himself. Apparently, this teaching struck a chord among large numbers of easterners who still thought of God as unitary, and who had not fully accepted Jesus’ incorporation into the Godhead. This may explain why, in the Middle East and North Africa, “the whole [Christian] structure was swept away in a few decades by the Arab tribes and their clear Moslem [Muslim] doctrine of One God * ”

“With the ascension of Islam, Arianism as a discrete religious philosophy disappeared in the East as well as in the west. But the great question that had generated the controversy over Jesus’ divinity remained – and remains yet – to haunt the imagination and provoke the conscience of humankind.”

* Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. N.Y. Atheneum, 1976, p. 93.

This view seems “to be exploded” by practicing American-born Muslims, students also of “comparative religions”, which now are presenting “studies” such as: “Christ – A Prophet of Islam”, here is their speech: “Explore the persona of a prophet of Islam, Issa, as a possible alternative account of Jesus in the New Testament. Use the primary source of Islamic belief, The Quran [Koran, Qur'an, Q’uran, Coran, Corán] as well as the New Testament. No prior knowledge of Islam is necessary. Approach this subject from an objective, neutral perspective.”

About Rubenstein’s conclusion: It has been the human “imagination” both for Arians and for Athanasians, instead of trusting in God’s Word, which has bring the trinity and all its doctrines, including the idea that Jesus Christ is God. Rubenstein’s conclusive comment regarding “imagination” is very different to what we read in the Bible: “This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination (Heb. bis-ha-rirut, Gk. entumemasi) of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing” (Jer. 13:10), “because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations (Gk. dialogismos), and their foolish heart was darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:21-22), “for though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations (Gk. logismos), and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor. 10:3-6).

The Quran, was written ~600 years later than the writings of the New Testament.

“Koran (Arabic Quran, from qaraa, “to read”, “a recitation”), also spelled Alcoran, the supreme body of Islamic law, the sacred scripture of Islam, meant to be chanted or sung as part of Islamic worship. The name was applied by Muhammad [Mohammed, Ahmad, Ahmed, Mohamád, Mahoma, al-Amin (“the trusted one”), “the Praised One”] to each individual portion of the “revelations”, which according to Muslim beliefs, were received from Allah, but the name was later used for the book containing all of them. Whenever Muhammad told of his revelations, secretaries wrote them down and his followers memorized them, completing the Koran few years after Muhammad’s death, in 632. An authorized version was produced in the early 650s by a group of Arabic scholars under Uthman ibn Affan, which antagonized the Islamic preachers by issuing an official text of the Koran, with an accompanying order to destroy all other versions, but some survived and are now accepted. Rebellious Muslim troops from al-Kufah (Iraq) and Egypt besieged Uthman in Medina and assassinated him in 656. Commentaries on the Koran are numerous; the library in Tripoli, Lebanon, reportedly contains 20,000 commentaries” ("Koran," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

“Muhammad proclaimed his own message, the Koran, to be the last revealed Book (as its splintering Bahai now think of “the Bayan”, foundation of their new “Babel”), and himself to be the last of the prophets, consummating and superseding the earlier ones. Muhammad initially granted Jews and Christians religious autonomy as “peoples of the Book,” whose revelations anticipated his own. Important elements from Judaism and Christianity were incorporated into Islam, but it was mainly rooted in the pre-Islamic Arabic traditions. In Mecca (Arabic Makkah; ancient Macoraba, Makoraba), a religious center before the time of Muhammad, Muslims also celebrate the offering of a sacrifice in memory of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of his son. Such central institutions as the pilgrimage and the Kaaba (Caaba) shrine were absorbed, in modified form, from Arabic paganism. The Kaaba already attracted pilgrimages as the most important sanctuary (al-Haram) in pre-Muslim Arabia, and the traditional belief was that was built by Abraham and Ishmael (to whom the Arabs trace their descent), using foundations laid first by Adam, “confirmed” by the Koran. In the southeastern corner of the Kaaba is the Black Stone, supposedly given to Abraham by the angel Gabriel. Also within the precincts of the mosque is the sacred well, called the Zamzam (or Zemzem), which was reputedly used by Hagar, mother of Abraham's son Ishmael. For Muslims, the Kaaba is the “House of Allah,” where the divine touches the mundane. Muhammad, in reforming the pre-Islamic Arabic tradition, also confirmed it. Through centuries, the Kaaba has played an important role as a meeting place of Islamic scholars for the exchange and diffusion of their ideas, and to promote political solidarity in the Muslim world. According to the Koran, men are at the same time “equal to women” and “a degree higher than women”, because men are charged with the household expenditure. The Koran approves polygamy, allowing as many as four wives; however, Muhammad eventually married nine women, including Aisha, the child daughter of his kinsman and early follower Abu Bakr, who was to become the first caliph, or successor to Muhammad. He also took a Christian Coptic slave as a concubine. Muhammad's sons all died in infancy, and the only daughter to survive him was Fatima, who married Ali, the fourth caliph. The abuse of polygamy and of the husband's right in traditional Islam to repudiate his wife, even when her conduct is faultless, has recently led to the enactment of reformed family laws in most Muslim countries” (“Muhammad,” "Mecca," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

“Theological speculation began soon after Muhammad's death. Although the Koran explicitly denies that Muhammad performed any miracles, his followers soon credited him with many miraculous feats. The story of Muhammad's ascension to heaven from Jerusalem, for instance, seems to have been modeled on the ascension of Jesus. Muhammad's heart, his early followers asserted, was miraculously cleansed of all unworthy thoughts when he was a boy of 12, and he was declared, as were the other prophets, immune from error and able to intercede on the behalf of sinners (these and other’s are in the Sunna, “the example” or “the exemplary conduct of the Prophet Muhammad”, the body of Islamic custom, a second body of Islamic law comprising the actions and utterances attributed to the prophet Muhammad, also called the Hadith, “the Way of the Prophet”; unlike the Koran, Hadith is not considered “infallible”, although it is almost equally fundamental for most Muslims. Recent research, not yet accepted by the large body of Muslims, has demonstrated that much of Hadith was not derived from Muhammad, but represents the opinions of the early generations of Muslims, opinions subsequently attributed to “the Prophet”, additions to it were later made by Muslims who wanted to advance certain theological or legal opinions). According to the Koran, Islam is the primordial and universal religion, and even nature itself is Muslim, because it automatically obeys the laws Allah has ingrained in it. Opposing the Bible, the Koran declares that “reforming the earth” is the ideal of human endeavor. Adam was the first prophet; after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Allah forgave him his lapse (for this reason Islam does not accept the doctrine of original sin). The profession of Islamic faith (the Shahadah), must be made “by the tongue and with full assent from the heart”, publicly by every Muslim at least once in his or her lifetime: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet” ("Islam", that means to surrender), 1994, Microsoft Encarta.

“Shiites, when politically defeated and persecuted, became an underground movement and adopted the principles of taqwa (which in this case means “dissimulation of faith”) and of an esoteric interpretation of the Koran. Thus, Shiites believe that beneath the explicit and literal meanings of the Koran are other levels of meaning, which are known only to the imam, who can reveal them only to chosen followers. They also affirm the validity of a form of temporary marriage called muta. Shiites pay the tax called zakat (originally levied by Muhammad to help the poor and later levied by Muslim states) to their religious leaders rather than to state authorities, as they did before achieving political power (for instance, in Iran since the 15th century). As a result, many Shiite leaders in Iran and Iraq have immense wealth and property, as was the Ayatollah Khomeini” ("Shiites," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

“Although Ismailis subscribe to basic orthodox Islamic doctrines, they also maintain esoteric teachings and corresponding interpretations of the Koran” ("Ismailis," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

“Modernist Islamic ideas were based on varied plausible interpretations of the Koran, but were bitterly opposed by Islamic fundamentalists, especially after the 1930s, they accused them of being “purveyors of Western morality”. According to the Koran, the fast of Ramadan has been instituted so that believers may cultivate piety; this particular month was designated because it was the month during which Muhammad received the first of the Koran's revelations. The fast begins each day at dawn and ends immediately at sunset. During the fasting, Muslims are forbidden to have sexual intercourse, eat, drink, or smoke. Before retirement each night, special congregational prayers are offered in which long passages of the Koran are recited. The night between the 26th and 27th days of Ramadan, on which the first revelation occurred, is called “the Night of Determination”, during which, according to the Koran, “Allah determines the course of the world for the following year”. The day after the end of Ramadan is called the Fast-Breaking and is celebrated with special prayers and festivities” ("Islam", "Ramadan," etc., 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

In the Qur’an, Jesus (Issa, 'Iesa) is presented as miraculously conceived of Mary, but the Qur’an denies that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins and for our salvation, and that God raised him from the dead. If Jesus was miraculously conceived beyond every other human, and of course, beyond Muhammad or Abraham, was not so because of his very unique, unsurpassable, and special mission to bring the availability of the fullness of salvation to all the humanity which is going to believe? Jesus kept himself in integrity all the days of his life to provide us such a great salvation.

The Koran denies that Jesus Christ is Lord. For them, Jesus Christ is one more in their list of prophets, taken alive to heaven by Allah, without having accomplished any salvation for that portion of the humanity that believed in him, neither sending holy spirit from on high to give power to the born again believers, making them sons, children of God, and that Jesus Christ is coming to take us away, to us, to the very members of the Body of Christ (either Jews or Gentiles, both fellow-heirs and co-heirs with Christ), yes!, to take us away from this world of corruption!, and that after that, Jesus is coming again to the earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to rule the whole earth in justice.

This is written in the Quran (foundation of Islam, Moske, Mosque, Mashed, Mashid, Masjed, Masjid, moschee, muskie, musquee, mosquee, moschea, mosqueta, meschita, mezquita, sajada, etc.):

Sura {Surah} 4 (An nísa, An-Nisaa, Al Nisa' (The Women)):157-158:

“That they [the Jews] said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus {Messiah 'Iesa} the son of Mary {Maryam}, the Apostle {Messenger} of Allah"; —But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: —Nay, Allah raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens); and Allah is Exalted in Power {Allah is Ever All-Powerful}, Wise {and All-Wise}.”

The Meaning of the Holy Quran {with the notes found on the NQuranSQ annotated text}, by Yusuf Ali, who says: “blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, is rejected by Islam” and also that “the Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of his enemies,” and “that he was taken up to Allah”. For the Sura 4:158 Ali makes the next Commentary: “There is difference of {Muslims in their} opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: ‘The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafau) to Himself’. One {Muslim} school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view.” The Q’uran that, when compared with the “mission” of Muhammed, “Jesus mission was more limited” (@1234 in Yusuf Ali's Commentary on Yusuf Ali's Translation).

The clear contradiction within the very same pages of the Quran is that in the Surah 4:158 is written that: “Allah raised him (Jesus) up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens)”, whereas other surah says that Jesus was going to die:

Surah 19:33 “so peace (salam) is on me (Jesus), The day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!”

Ali’s only comment to this contradictory verse inside the Quran is: “Christ was not crucified.”

Jesus Christ was already raised from his real death on the cross, and will never die again! The death of Jesus Christ being born not of man’s seed, but of the seed of the woman, by a special creation of God within her, and dying for our sins, destroyed, paralyzing and inactivating, the devil in his life and in our life:

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus) also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14).

“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen” (Rom. 16:20).

And also:

“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight” (Col. 1:20-22).

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2:14-15).

The Quran refers to Jesus as ‘the son of Mary’ but never as “the son of God,” Muslims don’t believe that Jesus is the son of God, they take it even as a “blasphemy”, here is what the Quran says about that (granting just for this limited comparison that the words “Allah” and “God” may be “synonym” in the Arabic tongue (although the word Allah means properly in Arabic “al-llah”, “the God”, it is, with the Article “the” intermingled within the word “God”. Even “the pre-Islamic Arabs recognized Allah as the supreme God”, “Islam does not admit of any mediator between Allah and humans” (in: "Allah," Microsoft Encarta, 1994); while the real Allah depicted in the Quran has nothing to do with the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ and of us):

Surah 2:116 They (Jews, Christians and pagans) say: "Allah hath begotten a son" (children or offspring) {Allah hath taken unto Himself a Son}: Glory be to him (Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him) - Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him

Surah 9:30 The Jews call Uzair {Ezra} a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ {Messiah} the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them {Allah (himself) fighteth against them}: how they are deluded away from the truth.

Surah 21:26 “And they say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten offspring (a son or children)." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour [those whom they call sons or children of Allah i.e. the angels, 'Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra), etc.],”

Surah 72:3 “And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: (we believe) He has taken neither a wife nor a son (or offspring or children),”

Surah 112:3 “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten,” etc.

Yusuf’s comments:

“@119. It is a derogation from the glory of Allah - in fact it is blasphemy - to say that Allah begets sons, like a man or an animal. The Christian doctrine is here emphatically repudiated. If words have any meaning, it would mean an attribution of Allah of a material nature, and of the lower animal functions of sex… ,” “@5551. “Mary the mother of Jesus... was one of the purest of women, though the Jews accused her falsely of unchastity. As a virgin she gave birth to Jesus… Greek mythology makes Zeus the father of Apollo by Latona or of Minos by Europa. And yet that is the doctrine to which the Christian idea of "the only begotten Son of God" leads”, etc.

But the Bible calls “sons of God (Bene ha-Elohim)” even to the angels in the Old Testament, lets see the KJV followed by the Septuagint in several passages:

Job 1:6: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them (KJV). And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them (Septuagint).

Job 2:1: Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD (KJV). And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord (Septuagint).

Pss 89:6: For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? (KJV). For who in the heavens shall be compared to the Lord? and who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God? (Septuagint).

Gen 6:1-2: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose (KJV). And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the angels of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose (Septuagint, Alexandrine Version).

And when one angel is described (in singular):

Dan 3:25: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like a son of God.

Etc…

The Quran says that:

Surah 4:86 "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, “we are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant."

Surah 2:62 “Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

Surah 5:69 “Those who believe (in the Quran), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the work righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

But then, the opposite is stated in the same book:

Surah 5:51 “O ye who believe take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.”

It is vital for us to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as the Bible says. His work of salvation and of forgiveness of sins was fulfilled with his death in the cross, and after that, he sent holy spirit to whosoever believes that God raised Jesus from the dead, and confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord. With such confession, we became also the children and sons of God, filled with all His spiritual power.

The Bible has to say about Jesus being begotten of God:

Ps. 2:7: “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (Heb. Yelidtiyka, Gk. gegenneka).”

This is referred to in the New Testament:

Heb 1:5-6: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (gegenneka) thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten (prototokon) into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Heb. 5:5: So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten (gegenneka) thee.

Regarding Jesus’ unique conception:

Jn. 1:14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten (monogenos) of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jn. 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten (monogenos) Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jn. 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten (monogenos) Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jn. 3:18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten (monogenos) Son of God.

1 Jn. 4:9: In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten (monogenos) Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Jesus Christ, the only human conceived in such a unique way, by a specific act of creation of the complementary DNA inside one ovum of Mary. The all-powerful creator of the universe could do it because he had since the beginning been announcing it by his trustworthy Word, through His prophecy and through His law for Israel, and even by the way in which he designed the human body! Is not the sex determinant absent of women? Is not the ovum pool present since the woman is an embryo, but not so sperm in males? Is not the sperm the one that moves, carrying life and death? Are not recessive genes a living witness of the fallen nature of men?

Gen. 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Lev. 20:23: And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Read by yourself all genetic and biologic implications for the things going on in the “civilized” nations surrounding the Israelites, as faithfully described by God in Leviticus chapters 18 to 20 and in the rest of the books of “the Torah,” a living witness against “the customs of the nations.” And today, people wonders on the origin of “inherited diseases” or of “sexually transmitted diseases”, as in San Francisco or in France, while still practicing the same things! The seed of the woman, our promised seed Jesus Christ had to be born of the purer (tamim, like Noah, like Jacob) human stock, even in the ovum that formed him, plus the specific act of God’s creation of the complementary DNA within that ovum!

Also, God gave the specific news to Mary through Gabriel, and she believed in the Word of God (Lk 1:38, 45). See the Biblical text:

Lk. 1:26: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Lk. 1:27: To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Lk. 1:28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Lk. 1:29: And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Lk. 1:30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Lk. 1:31: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lk. 1:32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lk. 1:33: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Lk. 1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Lk. 1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Lk. 1:36: And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lk. 1:37: For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Lk. 1:38: And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

And Elizabeth her cousin told her:

Lk. 1:45: And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Regarding Jesus Christ’s resurrection:

Acts 13:33: God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (gegenneka) thee.

Rev. 1:5: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten (prototokos) of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

Once raised form the death, Christ Jesus became a vivifying spirit, with full control over matter, according to the will of God. Jesus became with a raised and eternal spiritual body, created by a Spiritual and Eternal being, by God almighty Himself. Jesus is the only one that has been raised from the dead, and not until his second coming anybody else is going to be raised also:

1 Cor. 15:20-26: But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

And of us, as we are born again of holy spirit, it is written:

1 Cor. 4:15: For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten (egennesa) you through the gospel.

Philemon 1:10: I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten (egennesa) in my bonds.

1 Pet. 1:3: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again (anagennesas) unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

1 Jn. 5:1-2: Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born (gegennetai) of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten (gegennemenon) of him. By this we know that we love the children (tekna) of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1 Jn. 5:18: We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten (genneteis) of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

When we confess with our mouth that Jesus is our Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him form the dead (Rom. 10:9-10), we receive salvation, holy spirit from on high, we became born again beings with spirit within, with divine nature, we then became the sons of God:

2 Pet. 1:3-4: According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And an example on Abraham (as the prophetic shadow of type of what God did in Jesus Christ):

Heb. 11:17: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten (monogenos) son.

Etc…

Here are some records of the Koran regarding the conception of Jesus Christ:

Surah 4:47 She [Mary] said: "O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a Plan, He but saith to it, 'Be', and it is!

Surah 19:19-22 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son." She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that non man has touched me and I am not unchaste?" He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us:' It is a matter (so) decreed." So she conceived him, And she retired with him to a remote place.

Surah 21:91 And she who was chaste, therefore We breathed into her (something) of Our spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples (translated by M. M. Pickthall)

Surah 66:12 -12- And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit: and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).

Again, even the Q’uran is acknowledging that the conception of Jesus Christ was divine, and without human masculine intervention (though in the Koran the record is “intermingled” with Muhammad’s fantastic imaginations and/or “revelations” from below). Muslims need to consider deeply that, together with Jesus completely perfect life, with his death for our sins, and with his resurrection (as we all acknowledge that he is now already at the right hand of God), is his future second coming to earth. Does all of that not tell something to the thinking Muslims about the uniqueness and greatness of Jesus Christ over every other human that ever have exited and that will ever be over the face of the earth?

Here is the so “blurry” version of the Qu’ran regarding the second coming of Jesus Christ:

Sura 43:61a “And he ['Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)] shall be a known sign for (the coming of) the Hour (Day of Resurrection) [i.e. 'Iesa's (Jesus) descent on the earth]. Therefore have no doubt concerning it (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)” {Meanings of the Holy Quran, NQuranSQ}.

Surah 43:61a “And lo! verily there is knowledge of the Hour. So doubt ye not concerning it” {M. M. Pickthall}

Surah 43:61a “And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): Therefore have no doubt about the (Hour)” {AL ZUKHRUF (The Gold Adornments), Yusuf Ali}

43:61ª “Será un medio de conocer la Hora. ¡No dudéis, pues, de ella!” {El lujo (Az zojrof), “El Noble o Sagrado Corán”}

And here is Yusuf’s comment:

*2*-43.61: @4662. This is understood to refer to the second coming of Jesus in the Last Days… when he will destroy the false doctrines that pass under his name…

Finally, must be stated that Paul Johnson and Richard E. Rubenstein, as being far from the epicenter of Islam, fail to explain the precise tactics that were in the past and that are now being used for the “explosive” expansion of Islam and of Muslim beliefs, at the tip of the sword and with terrorism, as Allah grants paradise to everybody that sacrifice his life for him, fulfilling the Jihad; see just two suras on jihad followed by Yusuf’s Commentaries:

Jihad (holy war or fighting in Allah's Cause, the struggle for the cause of Islam, Surah 73:20, @5774) Surah 47:4,8 “So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” “But those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), for them is destruction, and (Allah) will make their deeds vain” (“NQuranSQ”).

Yusuf’s explanations: @4820. When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves, @4883. Jihad is hard striving, in war and peace, in the Cause of Allah, @4890. All who obey the call to Jihad with perfect discipline will get the Rewards of the Hereafter, @274. Jihad. We are to be under no illusion about it. If we are not prepared to fight for our faith, with our lives and all our resources, both our lives and our resources will be wiped out by our enemies. As to life, Allah gave it, and a coward is not likely to save it, @614 In a time of jihad, when people give their all, and even their lives, for the common cause, they must be accounted more glorious than those who sit at home, even though they have good will to the cause and carry out minor duties in aid. The special reward of such self-sacrifice is special forgiveness and mercy, as proceeding from the direct approbation and love of Allah. @1190. The laws of Jihad are exactly similar to those enforced by military virtue and discipline. Meet your enemy fairly and squarely, not rashly, but after due preparation. Zahfan in the text (meeting in hostile array) implies a slow and well-planned proceeding towards a hostile army. When once in combat, carry it through: there is no room for second thoughts. Death or victory should be the motto of every soldier: it may be death for himself individually, but if he has faith, there is triumph in either case for his cause. Two exceptions are recognized: (1) reculer pour mieux sauter, to go back in order to jump forward; or to deceive the enemy by a feint; (2) if an individual or body is, by the chances of battle, isolated from his own force, he can fall back on his force in order to fight the battle. There is no virtue in mere single-handedness. Each individual must use his life and his resources to the best advantage for the common cause. @1234. a Jihad is fought under strict conditions laid down by Islam, and solely for the cause of Allah, @1270. Here is it good description of Jihad. It may require fighting in Allah's cause, it’s a form of self-sacrifice. But its essence consists in (1) a true and sincere Faith, which so fixes its gaze on Allah, that all selfish or worldly motives seem paltry and fade away, and (2) an earnest and ceaseless activity, involving the sacrifice (if need be) of life, person, or property, in the service of Allah… the sincere scholar's pen or preacher's voice or wealthy man's contributions may be the most valuable forms of Jihad, @1373. Fighting may be inevitable, and where a call is made by the ruler of an Islamic State, it should be obeyed. But fighting is not to be glorified to the exclusion of all else. Even among those who are able to go forth, a party should remain behind-for purposes of study, so that when the fighters return home, their minds may be attuned again to the more normal interests of religious life, under properly instructed teachers. The students and teachers are soldiers of the Jihad in their spirit of obedience and discipline, @3503. The Way of Allah (sirat-ul-Mustaqim) is a Straight Way. But men have strayed from it in all directions. And there are numerous Paths by which they can get back to the Right Way, the way in which the purity of their own nature, and the Will and Mercy of Allah require them to Walk. All these numerous Paths become open to them if once they give their hearts in keeping to Allah and work in right Endeavour (Jihad) with all their mind and soul and resources. Thus will they get out of the Spider's web of this frail world and attain to eternal Bliss in the fulfillment of their true Destiny.

The concept of jihad has nevertheless, been used by Muslim rulers to justify wars motivated by purely political ambitions. According to classical Islamic law, the world was divided into three zones: the House of Islam, where Muslims are ascendant; the House of Peace, those powers with whom Muslims have peace agreements; and “the House of War”, which is the rest of the world (!) (“Islam,” 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

Versus:

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (Jn. 18:36-37).



“And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world… Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him” (Jn. 8:23,28-29).



This is the trustworthy prophecy regarding Ishmael and his posterity, as we read it in Genesis (and of which the daily “news” give witness), revealed ~1913 B.C.:

“And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren” (Gen. 16:12).

Old and “typical news” of splintering groups based in the Koran (and its jihad), following after the criminal steps of its founder:

“Yasir Arafat’s “Palestine Liberation Organization” (PLO), a political group that represents Palestinian Arabs through the actions of its affiliated guerrilla groups has earned an international reputation as a terrorist organization. At the foundation of many of the PLO guerrilla actions is the concept of jihad, or holy war. According to the Koran, it is acceptable to use armed force, if necessary, in the “reformation” of the world. Muhammad, the founder of Islam and called “the messenger of Allah”, first introduced the jihad as a means of conquering (and converting) other religious groups, as well as unifying the separate Islamic tribes against their intrusion” (Source: UPI/Bettmann).

“A splinter group of Ismailis, known to Westerners as Assassins, established a stronghold in the mountains of northern Iran in the 12th century and carried out terrorist acts of assassination against important religious and political leaders of Sunni Islam” ("Ismailis," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

“Wahhabi warriors, members of “a puritanical Muslim reform movement” that begun by the conservative Syrian jurist Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), a movement “faithful to the Koran and to the Hadith”, successfully attacked and purged the Islamic shrine at Karbala and the cities of Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina in the early years of the 19th century” ("Wahhabis," 1994, Microsoft Encarta).

Let Us Remember Correctly Terror "In The Name Of Allah". M. Malkin, Outlook, Houston Chronicle, Sunday, Sept 12,2004.

On the third anniversary of Sept. 11, we remain at war - and the media remain in denial.

How many times have you picked up a newspaper and read about terrorist attacks perpetrated mot by Muslim terrorists, but by generic "militants" or "guerrillas" or "rebels" or, as Mideast scholar Daniel Pipes noted the Pakistan Times called them, "activists"?

… Media whitewashing of our Islamofascist enemies…

A Nexis search of the terms "al-Qaida" and "religious" and "cult" in the New York Times for the year 2004 yielded just one article - a magazine piece in March.

The mainstream media pounded President Bush for trying to explain that the War on Terror is unwinnable in a conventional sense.

The mainstream press itself proves the president's point every time its reporters disguise the deadly fanatical nature of our opponents in this global war.

How are we to win a war against blood-spattered enemies whom our own free press continues to protect through politically correct sanitization? It wasn't no-name militants or wayward guerrillas who have butchered, beheaded and slaughtered thousands of innocents over the last three years alone.

Anniversary reality check:

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Russia stabbed babies to death, shot toddlers in the back, forced children to eat rose petals and drink their own urine, raped teenage girls, executed their teachers and blew themselves up in a crowded school gymnasium. Death toll: 339.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Spain detonated bombs on four commuter trains during Madrid's rush hour. Death toll: 190.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Bali blew up a beach resort with an electronically triggered bomb at one bar and a car bomb hidden in a van at another nightclub filled with young Western tourists on holiday. Death toll: 202.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Pakistan kidnapped and beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia kidnapped and beheaded American engineer Paul Johnson.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and beheaded American independent contractor Nick Berg.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and executed Italian security guard Fabrizio Quattrocchi.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in the Philippines kidnapped and killed American missionary Martin Burnham.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Israel engineered near-simultaneous suicide attacks on two buses, killing at least 15 people.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Morocco waged suicide-bombing attacks in Casablanca.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Turkey bombed synagogues and the British consulate.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in America hijacked and incinerated three planes full of men, women and firefighters in smoke-filled stairways, and forced office workers to leap 99 stories to their deaths after saying final prayers from the ledges of the World Trade Center on a peaceful September morning. Death toll: 3,000.

They tell us to "never forget."

First, let's stop misremembering.

--------------------

To see additional "Reality of Islam" images: http://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=65322 To see "The Hidden Advanced Aircraft of Bush's Black Operation 9/11", go to: http://911stealth.blogspot.com/2006/09/hidden-advanced-aircraft-of-bushs.html and to http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=chrisbornag

--------------------

As it is stated elsewhere:

“To attempt to eradicate terrorism without acknowledging its religious dimensions and motivations is blindly foolish... we need to do the honest assessment of the role of Islamic fundamentalism on the terrorist's mind.”

“God, who is love, has enthroned goodness in the very way He made the world, and evil can only ultimately bow before it in grudging servitude... to overcome evil teaching with good and healthy teaching... the integrity of the Scriptures and a living relationship with the true God through His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord.”

“Let us pray that the sound Biblical teaching of Only One God and Only One Man’s Redeemer can be translated into Arabic and begin to infiltrate the countries of the Middle East. The lives thus saved may be diverted from a path of terrorism to a path of salvation, and the rise of Islam dwarfed by the rise of disciplined followers of Jesus Christ, in what are now Islamic countries. It could happen. The Devil knows it, and has struck a blow against the possibility. That energizes me to redouble my efforts to get the Word out as quickly as possible to every corner of the globe. And I'm sure my desire to see that happen is dwarfed by the same desire in our Leader’s will, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

--------------------

To go to the main text: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/in-my-name.htm



Appendix 5.

This reading (the very late insertion within 1 John 5:7-8 that reads: “7b in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth”), the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 1500’s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the “Acts of the Lateran Council”, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many Greek Fathers would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the trinity.

The reading [1 John 5:7-8 addition] seems to have arisen in a “4th Century Latin Homily” in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the “Roman Catholic Church”.

[Editor’s Note: We read in the “Three Books On The Holy Spirit, By Ambrose Bishop Of Milan To The Emperor Gratian, Book I, 77. And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: "The water, the blood, and the Spirit." One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit”. Then, we read in the writings of Ambrose’s “religious son” Augustine: “Augustin Contra Maximinum, lib. ii. c. 22 §. 3. 1. Joann. v. 7.8. Tres sunt testes; spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt… "There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one"… these are mystical expressions… if we will inquire into the things signified by these… comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One", so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, "God is a Spirit", by the term, blood, the Son; because "the Word was made flesh", and by the term water, the Holy Ghost; as, when Jesus spake of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, "But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him were to receive." Moreover, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "Witnesses," who that believes the Gospel can doubt, when the Son saith, "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me, He beareth witness of me." Where, though the Holy Ghost is not mentioned, yet He is not to be thought separated from them. Howbeit neither concerning the Spirit hath He kept silence elsewhere, and that He too is a witness hath been sufficiently and openly shown. For in promising Him He said, "He shall bear witness of me." These are the "Three Witnesses, and the Three are One, because of one substance. But whereas, the signs by which they were signified came forth from the Body of the Lord [when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written, "And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:" then, as His side was pierced by the spear, "blood and water."], herein they figured the Church preaching the Trinity, that it hath one and the same nature: since these Three in threefold manner signified are One, and the Church that preacheth them is the Body of Christ. In this manner then the three things by which they are signified came out from the Body: of the Lord: like as from the Body of the Lord sounded forth the command to "baptize the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." "In the name:" not, In the names: for "these Three are One," and One God is these Three… this depth of mystery which we read in John's epistle… expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three…” (Augustin did another work “Ten Homilies On The First Epistle Of John” of whom “The remainder of the Homily number ten is wanting in all the manuscripts. It seems that Augustin was hindered from completing the exposition of the entire epistle, as he had undertaken to do: at least Possidius specifies this work under the title, "In Epist. Joannis ad Parthos Tractatus decem" and it is scarcely likely that the whole of the fifth chapter was expounded in Augustin’s tenth Homily on the first epistle of John”). We can see that Augustin confounds “blood” with “flesh”. The blood and the human dominant genes of Christ was similar to the blood of Adam before Adam’s fall, only by an act of God’s faithfulness to the promise of God Himself given in Gen. 3:15, was that a miracle was made possible, by a specific act of God’s creation of perfect and dominant genes (DNA) in the complementary chromosomes within one ovum of Mary, who believed to be made unto her “according to thy word [God’s Word through his angel Gabriel]”. Only in the flesh Jesus was of the lineage of David through Mary, however, his blood was pure and clean, not sharing a bit of the fallen blood nature present in David, or in Abraham, or in Adam after Adam’s fall. Some insights on Jesus’ conception can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/christ.htm]

This trinitarian formula made its way into “the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT” because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (or “forged”, the Codex 61, written in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this MS sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek MSS and yet goes back to the original text? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on “Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT” (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others

[NET Bible, 2001, our emphasis in colors]

The insertion within 1 John 5:7-8 was omitted completely by the British Committee in the Revised Version of 1881-1885, and by the American Committee in the American Standard Version of 1901. Yet both, the American and the British Bible Societies, knowing that the ancient texts and manuscripts do not substantiate the insertion, have continued to insert the error in the newer versions of the King James Version (KJV) as genuine Scripture. To print these verses for many years after it was known not to be true, is an immoral act with Scripture, and as such, it is sin.

The English translation is a clear case of forgery to mislead the reader. Whosoever committed the forgery had been trained to believe that there were three persons, each of whom was infinite God, yet there was but one God. If three equals one, and one equals three, the mathematics of theology must be a mysterious thing, “the mystery of the trinity.” However, it is not a matter of mystery; it is a matter of deliberate lying and of plain contradicting the Scripture. One error leads to another, because if Jesus Christ is God, then, by sheer logic, Mary has to be the mother of God [deceivingly canonized as “We confess that our Lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined”, in The Second Council Of Nice. A.D. 787, previously seen in the spurious document “The Divine Liturgy Of James, The Holy Apostle And Brother Of The Lord” as “Thou who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who didst submit for our salvation to become flesh of the holy God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary; who didst immutably become man and wast crucified, O Christ our God and didst by Thy death tread death under foot; who art one of the Holy Trinity glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit…]. Opposed to that, Jesus Christ said: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Lk 23:46). The mystery of the trinity is within the creeds of men, not in the Word of God.

The Trinitarians call themselves orthodox, and everybody else heretics – those who, on standing for the Word of God, differ to them. They consider themselves the custodians of evangelical truth. Bible societies and Bible translators continue to issue these forgeries, yet they endeavor to tell us they stand for honesty and integrity. Why not just simply believe the truth of God’s Word? The errors of the so-called orthodoxy are going to continue to be the forgeries of the Scriptures. Thus, they are adulterating the truth – those very people who profess to teach truth. The respect of thinking people cannot be permanently retained, for the seekers after truth will sooner or later discover all the mistranslations, as well as all the forgeries on which the doctrine of the trinity has been based.

At the present time, there is no Roman emperor’s sword to sustain it, only the tongue and pen of men. The trinitarian teaching has destroyed both good sense and good morals for leaders and for the so called “Christian thought”. Religion has lost its hold on thinking people. Thinking people will not continue following leaders in whose honesty they have no confidence, those who defile the Word of God and defile themselves. To say that Jesus Christ is God the Son is idolatry. To say: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, is truth. The early Church taught, with emphasis only one God; but the trinity was forced on the world by the sword of the Roman power.

The early Christians had no conception of the doctrine of the trinity as it is now taught. Today, it’s like in the days of Elijah: one who calls people back to the worship of the true God is considered a troubler, as if disseminating dangerous views. Endeavoring to sustain a doctrine disproved by the integrity of the Word of God and by human intellect, is putting forth a great deal of effort in trying to believe a lie. Anyone questioning the settled dogma of the trinity is advised not to do so, why? It is because it would upset the orthodoxy relative to the doctrine of the trinity? A doctrine established by the sword, by persecution, and by cruel oppression? On doing so, the roman church, which was corrupted by statesmen and ecclesiastical hierarchy in a civilized world, became only an imitation of heathen religions using Christian names.

The average student is not told that the dogma of the trinity unified the roman church by persecution. It is concealed from him that Theodosius “the Great” (see Appendix 3 to read his statement and of his sanguinary character) in the latter part of the fourth century made, by force, the trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire; and at that time, there were not enough Trinitarians in the capital city of Constantinople on the first Sunday thereafter, to place, not even to one single trinitarian worshipper in each church building in the city.

The first commandment states, “I am the Lord thy God… Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:2-3) and “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4-5, Mk 12:29-30). These are never emphasized in any creed that man has made. Yet, these scriptures still shine like diamonds, with great accuracy in the Word of God. God’s revelation to men opens with God creating, and closes when “the Son, also himself being subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). I know of almost not even one denomination that does not treat the greatest and most beautiful of all the commandments as though it were obsolete, and brand as “heretic”, to anyone disagreeing with their own imaginations and opinions exalted to dogmas.

“Religious Men” want us to worship their human thoughts consecrated as dogmas and not the true God! What do we really “win” by believing that God is “one in three persons”? Are we not rather contradicting the Word of God and loosing our good sense by that statement? If the truth of the greatness of God’s Word is not revived and believed, “Christendom” will still to be the laughingstock of the world, and only will be a veneered heathenism

[thought inspired by: V. P. Wierwille, Forgers of the Word, 1983, American Christian Press]

To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not degrade his importance and significance in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. The Bible does not designates Jesus Christ as God, but the Bible tells us about Jesus Christ that:

1) It is he who sought me out from darkness.

2) It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator.

3) It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin.

4) It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life – which is Christ in me, the hope of glory.

5) It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins.

6) It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit.

7) It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

8) It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies.

9) It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love.

10) It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling.

11) It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him.

12) It is he who is God’s only begotten son.

[Wierwille, Jesus Christ is not God, p. 2, 8-9, 81, 151-154, 156-157]

God can only be known from God’s written Word, the Bible, and from the declared Word, God’s Son, Jesus Christ. God gave His Son that we might have life and have it more abundantly – yes, that life which is eternal and therefore more than abundant. If Jesus Christ is God and not the Son of God, we have not yet been redeemed, our very redemption, the crucial point on which all true Christianity rests, is dependent on Jesus Christ being a man and not God. Our Passover, which was Jesus Christ, was tortured, crucified, dead and buried, and he has to be a sheep from the flock:

“If an ascending-sacrifice, be his oblation—of the herd, a male without defect, shall he bring near,—unto the entrance of the tent of meeting, shall he bring it, for its acceptance, before Yahweh” (Leviticus 1:3, The Emphasized Bible, by J. B. Rotherham).

“A flock animal, a perfect one, a male, a yearling, shall be to you.

You shall take from the sheep or from the goats.

And it shall be for you to keep until the fourteenth day of this month.”

(Exodus 12:5-6a. (B. C. 1491), Green’s Literal Translation, 1993)

“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. For this reason he ought by all means to become like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things respecting God, in order to make propitiation for the sins of his people. For in that he himself has suffered, having been tempted, he is able to rescue those who have been tempted.” (Hebrews 2:16-18, King James Version –plus- Green’s Literal Translation).

“…The blood of Christ (which through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God) purge your consciences from dead works for to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 2:14b. William Tyndale Translation, 1525).

Christ, the blemish-less lamb offered himself to God. God would not offer Himself to Himself. But Christ was not God; and, therefore, presented himself to God as the perfect sacrifice.

Christ did met every requirement of the law:

“For Christ is the end of the law to justify all that believe” (Romans 10:4. William Tyndale Translation, 1525).

The greatness of God’s Word shows how, through his sacrificial death, Jesus Christ was our Passover:

“…For Christ, our Passover Lamb (Korban Pesach, esterlambe) is already offered up for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7b, William Tyndale Translation, 1525 –plus- Brit Chadasha).

“On the morrow John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, ‘Lo, the Lamb of God, who is taking away the sin of the world’ ” (John 1:29, Young’s Literal Translation).

“And Abraham said: ‘God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt-offering, my son’. So the two of them continued on together” (Genesis 22:8, Jewish Publication Society –plus- NET Bible).

Gen 22:8 is an important passage in the background of the title Lamb of God as applied to Jesus. In Jewish thought this was held to be a supremely important sacrifice. G. Vermès stated: “For the Palestinian Jew, all lamb sacrifice, and especially the Passover lamb and the Tamid offering, was a memorial of the Akedah with its effects of deliverance, forgiveness of sin and messianic salvation” (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 225; a NET Bible note).

Examples of scriptures that show who Jesus Christ was:

Man, Of the Male Sex Arrhen:

“And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne” (Rev. 12:5).

“And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child ” (Rev. 12:13).

Man, Adult Male Aner:

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22).

“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:31).

“This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me” (Jn. 1:30).

Man Anthropos:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead” (1Cor 15:21).

“But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many” (Rom. 5:15, see below).

“The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47).

“But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham” (Jn. 8:40).

“Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?” (Jn. 4:29).

“And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mk. 15:39).

“Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man” (Lk. 23:47).

“But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men” (Mt. 9:8).

“The officers answered, Never man spake like this man” (Jn. 7:46).

“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles” (Jn. 11:47).

“Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?” (Jn. 5:12).

“He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight” (Jn. 9:11).

“Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them” (Jn. 9:16).

“Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (Jn. 11:50).

“Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people” (Jn. 18:14).

“Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner” (Jn. 9:24).

“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God… Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Jn. 10:33, 36)

“Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (Jn. 7:51).

“The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children” (Mt. 11:19, Lk. 7:34).

“And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man… Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew” (Mt. 26:72, 74).

“But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak” (Mk. 14:71).

“Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not” (Jn. 18:17).

“For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it” (Lk. 7:8, Mt. 8:9).

“Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?” (Jn.18:29).

“Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man” (Lk. 23:4).

“When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean” (Lk. 23:6).

“Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!” (Jn. 19:5).

“…Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him” (Lk. 23:14).

“Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us” (Acts 5:28).

“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:7-8).

Etc..

Here is the expanded context of Romans 5:14-19:

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. F12, 31, Mk 10:33, 45, Mk 13:26, (Mk 13:34, by ellipsis), Mk 14:21, 41, 62, Lk 5:24, Lk 6:5, 22, Lk 7:34, Lk 9:22, 26, 44, 56, 58, Lk 11:30, Lk 12:8, 10, 40, Lk 17:22, 24, 26, 30, Lk 18:8, 31, Lk 19:10, Lk 21:27, 36, Lk 22:22, 48, 69, Lk 24:7, Jn 1:51, Jn 3:13, 14, Jn 5:27, Jn 6:27, 53, 62, Jn 8:28, Jn 12:23, 34 (twice), Jn 13:31, Acts 7:56, Heb 2:6, Rev 1:13, Rev 14:14, etc.]

“And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:4)

[To see “the Son of God”, see also: Mt 3:17, 4:3, 6, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, 17:5, 26:63, 27:40, 43, 54, Mk 1:1, 11, 3:11, 5:7, 9:7, 15:39, Lk 1:32, 35, 3:22, 4:3, 9, 41, 8:28, 9:35, Jn 1:18, 34, 49, 3:16, 17, 18, 5:25, 6:69, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 27, 19:7, 20:31, Acts 8:37, 9:20, 13:33, Rom. 1:3, 4, 9, 5:10, 8:3, 1 Cor. 1:9, 2 Cor. 1:19, Gal. 2:20, 4:4, Eph. 4:13, 1 Thess. 1,9, 10, Heb. 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29, 1 Jn. 1:3, 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 10, 12, 13, 20, 2 Jn. 3, etc.]

God has already revealed to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, and that surely includes the revelation of “who is his son”, and God has already made us partakers of God’s own divine nature:

“According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:3-4).

Jesus Christ told it before:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (Jn. 14:12-14).

And Paul explains it:

“Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5:20).

“And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17).

“Whatsoever ye do in word or deed” surely includes anything that a human being can say or can do, and all needs to be done “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, not “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”.

“And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him” (1 Jn. 5:14-15).

Even to ask anything to God with our understanding, according to his will includes doing it in the name of Jesus Christ. If we don’t confess who Jesus Christ really is, according only to the Bible, we are also betraying Jesus, as Judas Iscariot did. Humans can be easily deceived, but not in this point if we believe and obey the Word of God.

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11). or as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:14-19, KJV).

And the same context, in another version that supplies every ellipsis to be found within this text:

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the coming man. But in this way also, the gift is not as the transgression. For if by the trespass of the one man the many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the gift is not as through one man who sinned, for indeed the judgment from one man was for condemnation, but the gift from many offenses is for righteousness. For if, by the offense of the one man, death reigned through the one man, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. So then, as through an offense of one man was for condemnation for all men, so also through a righteousness of one man was for justification of life for all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were led sinful, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be led righteous” ((Rom. 5:14-19, A Conservative Version).

[Even in “the trinitarian” KJV is clearly established in Rom. 5:15 that Jesus Christ was a man (anthropos in the Textus Receptus), Jesus Christ was our “man – man’s redeemer”. As we have seen before, the ellipsis describing Jesus Christ as one man are accurately supplied four more times in Walter L. Porter’s “A Conservative Version”, making in that version a total of five appearances of the word “man” to describe Jesus Christ in Rom. 5:14-19, and also, less times in its surrounding verses, the ellipsis have been supplied for Jesus Christ being a man in the “New English Translation”, in Timothy E. Clontz’s “Common Edition”, in Gary F. Zeolla’s “Analytical-Literal Translation”, in Annie Cressman’s “Bible in Worldwide English”, New International Version, International Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, 1949 Bible in Basic English, “The Message”, Spanish “Dios Habla Hoy”, Spanish “Castillian (CST-IBS)”, 1933 G. Lamsa Translation from the Peshitta, Paul W. Esposito’s “English Majority Version”, "Philips NT", “Twentieth Century”, “NET Bible”, Spanish “El Libro del Pueblo de Dios”, Spanish “NVI”. The version “God’s Word” translates the Greek word “anthropos” as “person” and with “person” it supplies its ellipsis, “New Living Translation” supplies one ellipsis with “man” and one other with “person”, Weymouth (1912) supplies one ellipsis with “individual”. The “Contemporary English Version” even deletes the original Greek word “anthropos” translating only “Jesus Christ alone”.]

“The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Mt 26:24)

[To see “the son of man”, see also Mt 8:20, Mt 9:6, Mt 10:23, Mt 11:19, Mt 12:8, 32, 40, Mt 13:37, 41, Mt 16:13, 27, 28, Mt 17:9, 12, 22, Mt 18:11, Mt 19:28, Mt 20:18, 28, Mt 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44, Mt 25:13, 31, Mt 26:2, 45, 64, Mk 2:10, 28, Mk 8:31, 38, Mk 9:9,

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

“Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength” (Acts 3:6-7).

“But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19).

“By him [Jesus, from v. 12] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his [Jesus] name” (Heb. 13:15).

In the name of Jesus Christ there is power. In the name of Jesus Christ the sick are healed. In the name of Jesus Christ devils are cast out. In the name of Jesus Christ people are freed from mental bondage. We need to know the name of Jesus Christ and use that name, believing in it. All your needs are guaranteed to be supplied by Christ Jesus. We have all power in that name. We have the power of attorney that when we use the name of Jesus Christ, powerful things must happen.

“And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment” (1Jn 3:23).

We should love one another because of the name of Jesus Christ. You must know what the Word of God says, and then act upon that Word. As you hear The Word and act upon it, God will answer your requests. We have Christ in us, so we have the power of attorney. In the name of Jesus Christ activate that power and live the more abundant life!.

[Wierwille, V. P., Your Power of Attorney (chapter 4), “The New Dynamic Church”, 1971, American Christian Press, pp. 43-55].

--------------------

To go to the main text: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/in-my-name.htm



Appendix 6.

The Bible says, regarding those early (and of today) theologians, which with their personal aspirations took over the control of the “church” since its earlier days:

Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Rom. 1:18-32: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1 Cor. 4:6: And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

1 Cor. 4:18: Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.



1 Cor. 5:2, 6: And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

1 Cor. 8:1: Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.

1 Cor. 13:4-6 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not his own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

1 Cor. 15:12: Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

2 Cor. 4:2: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

2 Cor. 11:13-15: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Gal. 1:6-8: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Col. 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Col. 2:18-22: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Php. 2:21: For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's.

Php. 3:18-19: (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

2 Tim. 4:10: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

1 Tim. 1:18-20: This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2 Tim. 4:14-18: Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

1 Tim. 4:1-3: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 Tim. 3:6: Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

1 Tim. 6:3-5: If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Heb. 13:9: Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

1 Jn. 2:18-19: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

1 Jn. 2:26: These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

1 Jn. 4:1, 3, 5: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world… And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world… They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

2 Jn. 1:7, 9: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist… Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

3 Jn. 1:9-11: I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

1 Pet. 2:1-2: Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation.

2 Pet. 2:1-3: But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

2 Pet. 2:12: …these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption

2 Pet. 2:15: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness

2 Pet. 2:19: While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.



2Pet 3:17: Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Jude 1:4, 10-11: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ …these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.



2 Tim. 2:15-20: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.



2 Tim. 1:15-16: This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain.

Etc…

Remember:

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-8).

The “Book of Mormon” is another “trick” of the adversary, but that is another topic:

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Read “all the Bible - all the time” as possible, “manifest holy spirit all the time (it is, “speak in tongues all the time”)” that is really possible! to be able to identify what God really says in His wonderful Word, and to “beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).

------------------

To go to the main text: http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/in-my-name.htm



30.

Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma

Page 53

And

31.

Systematic Theology

Page 30

The Doctrine of Trinity is unscriptural. In fact, the complete formulation of the teaching was declared only at the 11th Synod of Toledo in 675 A.D. (cf. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 53). The very term “Trinity,” as Bible scholar Augustus Hopkins Strong affirms, was merely an invention: “The term ‘Trinity’ is not found in Scripture, …The invention of the term is ascribed to Tertullian.” (Systematic Theology, page 30). And the baptismal formula was changed in 325 D.D. at the Nicean Counsel.





H
32.

Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (1898)

Volume 1

Page 24

“[One explanation is that] the original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Chris’ or ‘the Lord Jesus’. Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.”

Volume 2

Page 377

Christian baptism was administered using the words, ‘in the name of Jesus’

Page 377 on Acts 2:38

NAME was an ancient synonym for ‘person.’ Payment was always made I the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ name became His personal property. ‘Ye are Christ’ 1 Cor. 3:23.

Page 378

“The use of a Trinitarian Formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History.”

Page 389[14]

“Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr” when Triune formula used.



33.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible[15] by James Hastings, ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, (1963)

Page 88[16]

It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus.

“Different from the post-apostolic and later Christian liturgical praxis, which is marked by the trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19, the primitive church baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ,’ or ‘the Lord Jesus’; See 1 Corinthians 1:13, 15; Acts 8:16; 19:5).”[17]



34.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1963)[18]

Page 1015

“The Trinity: …is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs… The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (ca A.D. 180)… (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture…” “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Matthew 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 from 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…”



35.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion

Volume 2

Page 377-378

Christian baptism was administered using the words, ‘in the name of Jesus.’ The use of the Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early church history, baptism was always in the name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr when the trinity formula was used.”

Page 384

‘There is no evidence (in early church history) for the use of the triune name.”

Page 389

Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr.



36.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics

Article ‘Baptism: Early Christian

“The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ.”



37.

Hibbert Journal by F. C. Conybeare

The popes of the seventh century excommunicated the entire Celtic Church because of its adhesion to the old use of invoking the one name.



38.

History of Dogma by Adolf von Harnack

Volume I

Chapter II. The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma

Page 79

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

A community of Christian believers was formed within the Jewish national community. By its organization, the close brotherly union of its members, it bore witness to the impression which the Person of Jesus had made on it, and drew from faith in Jesus and hope of his return, the assurance of eternal life, the power of believing in God the Father and of fulfilling the lofty moral and social commands which Jesus had set forth. They knew themselves to be the true Israel of the Messianic time (see § 1), and for that very reason lived with all their thoughts and feelings in the future. Hence the Apocalyptic hopes which in manifold types were current in the Judaism of the time, and which Jesus had not demolished, continued to a great extent in force (see § 4). One guarantee for their fulfillment was supposed to be possessed in the various manifestations of the Spirit which were displayed in the members of the new communities at their entrance, with which an act of baptism seems to have been united from the very first, (76) and in their gatherings.

Footnote # 76: It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matt. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age, which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John IV. 2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a “Sacrament of Baptism,” or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, though it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was e??? t?` a?´fes?? a?µa?t???, and indeed e??? t?` ??´??µa (1. Cor. I. 13: Acts XIX. 5). We cannot make out when the formula, e??? t?` ??´??µa t?? pat??`?, ?a?` t?? ?????, ?a?` t?? a???´?? ??e?´µat?? (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost), emerged. The formula, e??? t?` ??´??µa (into the name), expresses that the person baptized is put into a relation of dependence on him into whose name he is baptized. Paul has given baptism a relation to the death of Christ, or justly inferred it from the e??? a?´fes?? a?µa?t???. The descent of the spirit on the baptized very soon ceased to be regarded as the necessary and immediate result of baptism; yet Paul, and probably his contemporaries also, considered the grace of baptism and the communication of the spirit to be inseparably united. See Scholten. Die Taufformel. 1885. Holtzman, Die Taufe im N. T. Ztsch. f. wiss. Theol. 1879.



39.

Hibbert Journal, F. Coneybeare

Conybeare, F. C. 1901. "The Eusebian Form of the Text Matt. 28, 19." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 2: 275-288.
Concerning Matthew 28:19, Conybeare states, "Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.' " (Hibbert Journal, F. Coneybeare). Eusebius' rendering here (...make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME...) ties directly with Luke 24:47 as listed above (repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS [Jesus'] NAME among all nations).

Conybeare states, "I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p.136):

"For he did not enjoin them to 'make disciples of all the nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to this appellation that the Apostle [Paul] says: 'God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.' It was right therefore that he [Jesus] should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles: 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in My name.' " (Hibbert Journal quoting Eusebius)
Conybeare continues, "It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice." (Hibbert Journal, p.105).
"Now Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day. If the Greek MS. there contained these words ["baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"], it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them."
In fact, Sir William Whiston stated, "We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption made in any one of them [the Scriptures] by either the Eusebians or Arians." (Second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p 15). "Different from the post-apostolic and later Christian liturgical praxis, which is marked by the trinitarian formula of Mt 28:19 (see Did. VII. i. 3; Just. Apol. LXI 3, 11, 13), the primitive Church baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus,' (or 'Jesus Christ,' or 'the Lord Jesus'; see I Co 1:13,15; Ac 8:16, 19:5; Did. ix. 5). (Dictionary of the Bible, James Hasting, 1963, p.88, article: Baptism). "...the trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition..." (Harper's Bible Dictionary sixth edition, 1959, p.60 article: baptism). And in the eighth edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary, it states, "While the earliest formula of baptism seems to have been 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16, 10:48) the trinitarian formula obviously became the standard at a very early time." "Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as a later origin." (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Henry Austryn Wolfsan, p. 277).
"In the last half of the fourth century, the text 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called 'pneumatomachi' or 'fighters against the Holy Spirit', because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius [meaning, they lacked the triune reading of Mt 28:19]" (Hibbert Journal, F. Conybeare).
How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come? Fred Conybeare notes, "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited--but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows--'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' " (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. P.287).
Alexandria was a hotbed of philosophical thought. Jewish philosopher, Philo, lived in Alexandria and taught his false doctrines of Gnosticism there. He spoke of "...one God, who in Himself is unity, yet appears in the likeness of a triad." He stated that a "holy and divine vision" of the Rulership is perceived "...in such a way, that a single vision appears to him [the one having the vision] as a triad, and a triad as unity... " And again, he states that "...the intellect perceives most clearly a unity although previously it learned to apprehend it under the similitude of a Trinity." (E.R. Goodenough Light, By Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, p.33). Philo clearly taught the trinity doctrine, as did fellow philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato - a doctrine which they all received from the Mystery teachings of Babylon. These Mystery teachings were the source of Theodotus' "Christianized" Gnostic trinitarian doctrine cited by Clement of Alexandria.
When did the corruption of the baptismal formula arise? According to Canney's Encyclopedia of Religion, the early church baptized in the name of Jesus until the second century. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11th ed., Vol 3, p365) agrees, stating that baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd century. And in Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p.389, it notes that baptism was always performed in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr.
It should now be clearly seen that all things are to be done in Jesus' name (Col 3:17), and that the words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," have been added to God's word to support the trinitarian doctrine brought in by the philosophers and other pagan "converts" to "Christianity". These words were not part of the original God-inspired text, much like the added words recorded in I John 5:7 (which are not in any Greek MS. prior to the 16th century).
"Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three witnesses, 1 John 5:7-8, shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity. [These added words of I Jn 5]...are now abandoned by all authorities except the Pope of Rome. By consequence, the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19." (Conybeare). And we have just seen that in light of Scripture and the early "church" writings, that it too, is unauthentic.
"In the course of my reading, I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it so weighty, that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three witnesses [I Jn 5:7,8]." (Hibbert Journal F. Conybeare).



40.

History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus?this long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading."

"It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance."



41.

History of the Christian Religion and Church by Neander

“The formula of baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is cited as the traditional one by Justin Martyr, is perhaps not the oldest; but the older is perhaps the shorter formula which refers to Christ.”





I
42.

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962)

Volume 1

Page 351

“The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’”.





J
43.

James Moffett’s New Testament Translation[19]

In the 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+.”





K
44.

Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church (1950)
Pg 133
UNDER THE SACRAMENTS

"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 8:26, Heb 10:22, Barn 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. "Also we find this confession of what really happened to Matthew 28:19, and how the real early Church of the bible baptized. "The one's baptizing names over the one's being baptized in the name of 'THE LORD JESUS CHRIST’, later expanded (OR CHANGED) to the name (more properly 'titles’) of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit - first attested in Did. 7:1”



45.

Kyrios Christianity by Wilhelm Bousset[20]

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.”





N
46.

New International Encyclopedia

Volume 22

Page 476

“The doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ is not found in it’s fully developed from in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.”

Page 477

“The term ‘Trinity’ was originated by Tertullian, a Roman Catholic Church Father in the Third Century.”



47.

New Revised Standard Version of the Bible[21]

“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…”





O
48.

Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300

by David K. Bernard

©1991 David K. Bernard

Printing History: 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998

Chapter 8

Baptism in the Name of Jesus

Page 121-128

Most church historians agree that the original Christian baptismal formula was “in the name of Jesus” (typically with the title of Lord or Christ).1 In the Post-Apostolic Age, Hermas and probably Clement of Rome alluded to baptism in Jesus’ name, and one passage in the Didache refers to this formula. The emphasis on the name of Jesus by both Clement and Ignatius further indicates that the church of this age practiced baptism in Jesus’ name.

The Age of the Greek Apologists provides the first definite evidence for a threefold formula. Even so, those who used such a formula, such as Justin and later Irenaeus, continued to include the name of Jesus. When Marcion’s followers broke away from the church near the beginning of that age they continued to follow the formula that the church was using, which was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” The early Montanists, who split off at the beginning of the Old Catholic Age, also apparently used the Jesus Name formula. (See chapter 9.)

The earliest evidence for the modern trinitarian formula is provided by one passage of the Didache (probably interpolated), by Tertullian, and by Origen. This formula is apparently the product of the Old Catholic Age. Nevertheless, the evidence discussed in this chapter shows that baptism in the name of Jesus was still widespread during this time.

Evidence in Popular Literature

The popular literature of the age provides evidence for baptism in Jesus’ name. Various apocryphal, anonymous, and pseudonymous books give us a glimpse of prevalent practices among the common people. These writings are not always reliable doctrinally, but they preserve evidence of typical baptismal practices. Since they were not written by well-known church leaders, teachers, or “heretics” and since they were not used primarily for doctrinal authority, it seems that later scribes were not as concerned about insuring their doctrinal purity. Thus, works of this kind were less subject to alteration or destruction for doctrinal reasons.

Acts of Paul and Thecla (a second-century work probably by an Asiatic presbyter): “In the name of Jesus Christ I am baptized on my last day.”

Acts of Peter and Paul: “We positively believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, into whom we have been baptized.”

Recognitions of Clement (part of the Pseudo-Clementine literature of the late second or early third century): “[Jesus] instituted baptism by water amongst them, in which they might be absolved from all their sins on the invocation of His name. . . . Every one who, believing in this Prophet who had been foretold by Moses, is baptized in His name” (1:39).

The Gospel of Philip also speaks of baptism in the name of Jesus (2:3:72).2



Evidence Preserved by Cyprian

Cyprian wrote of many “heretics” in his day who baptized in the name of Jesus. The evidence surrounding this controversy indicates that many people in the institutional church also baptized in Jesus’ name. Cyprian did not object to people in the church who baptized in Jesus’ name, but he opposed accepting the baptism of “heretics” simply on the basis that they had invoked the name of Jesus.

Those who disagreed with him felt that the name of Jesus was so powerful in baptism that it was efficacious even for schismatics. Their position shows how highly people regarded baptism in Jesus’ name even during this time of change and compromise. Both sides agreed that baptism was necessary for remission of sins and salvation, and everyone agreed that baptism in Jesus’ name within the mainstream church was valid.

In opposition to Stephen, bishop of Rome, Cyprian maintained that any baptism performed by heretics was invalid. In a letter to Jubaianus in 256, be opposed the teaching that “all who are baptized everywhere, and in any manner, in the name of Jesus Christ, have obtained the grace of baptism” (Epistles 72:16). He asked, “Can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ be judged to have obtained remission of sins?” and answered no (72:17).

Cyprian conceded that Peter taught baptism in Jesus’ name in Acts 2:38 but argued that this baptism was for the Jews, since they already acknowledged the Father (72:17). Gentiles who did not already acknowledge the Father should not be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” but must be baptized in the trinity (72:18). Cyprian accused the heretics of not properly honoring the name of the Father in their baptism (72:19). Presumably, he did not object to someone being baptized into the church in Jesus’ name if he already honored the Father properly as the believers in Acts did.

Among Cyprian’s correspondence is a letter written in 256 by Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, against Stephen. It quotes Stephen as teaching: “The name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is anywhere soever baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ” (74:18).

Cyprian wrote against Stephen to Pompey, arguing that if the church denied that heretics received the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus it should also deny that they received valid water baptism in the name of Jesus. “If they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ, are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?” (73:5).



“A Treatise on Rebaptism”

A Treatise on Rebaptism by an anonymous writer, probably a third-century bishop who opposed Cyprian, demonstrates that many people both inside and outside the institutional church baptized in the name of Jesus. The treatise discusses what should be done about persons “who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” and who turn from their heresy to the church (1). It concludes that rebaptism is not necessary: “Heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (12).

The treatise makes a number of significant points. First, its position had overwhelming support: the support of “the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition” (1), “the venerable authority of all the churches” (2), “the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops” (6), and “the custom and authority which so much claim our veneration for so long a time and for such great men” (15). These phrases indicate not only the acceptance of baptism performed outside the institutional church but strong support specifically for baptism in the name of Jesus.

Second, the name of Jesus is significant and effective in baptism. Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:9-11 show that “the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism . . . afford[s] to him . . . no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation” (6). The invocation of Jesus’ name alone does not bring salvation to the heretic, but if he corrects his error, acknowledges the truth, and receives the Holy Spirit, then it becomes effective; the heretic does not “lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus” (6). In fact, the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is baptism in the name of Jesus. “When the apostle said that there was ‘one baptism,’ it must needs have been by the continued effect of the invocation of the name of Jesus, because, once invoked, it cannot be taken away by man” (10).

The treatise argues that baptism in Jesus’ name does not contradict Matthew 28:19. “Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: ‘Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been used to be observed, yet it behoves us to consider that invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church. . . . Therefore ought this invocation of the name of Jesus to be received as a certain beginning of the mystery of the Lord common to us and to all others, which may afterwards be filled up with the remaining things” (7).

Either the author thought that both a threefold formula and the Jesus Name formula were acceptable, or else he concluded that invoking Jesus’ name was the proper fulfillment of Matthew 28:19. The latter conclusion is supported by his statements that “the invocation of the name of Jesus” in baptism fulfills the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 and that it is something “common to us and to all others.”

This document also reports that not only were heretics baptized by “invoking the name of the Lord Jesus,” but many people, both “Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized” (12).



Other References

Apostolic Constitutions (or Constitutions of the Holy Apostles) was written in the fourth century or later, but it contains elements from earlier times. It speaks of “every lay Christian, upon whom the name of our Lord Jesus Christ is called” (8:44).

Appended to it are the Canons of Hippolytus; in the collection of Dionysius, canon 50, which is of late origin, reveals that there was a controversy over trinitarian baptism and insists upon three immersions in the three titles. “If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one admission, but one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deprived. . . . Do ye, therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost.” It seems that some bishops and presbyters were refusing to use the trinitarian formula even in the fourth century.

At this point, the collection of John of Damascus adds a condemnation of modalism and of the idea “that there is one God with three names.” Apparently, the condemned baptism was single immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, which was viewed as an endorsement of a modalistic concept of God. Here, then, is evidence that the baptismal formula was associated with controversies over the Godhead. It seems that those who denied Trinitarianism but upheld the deity of Jesus refused to use the trinitarian formula but baptized in Jesus’ name.



Conclusions

Baptism in the name of Jesus was the practice of the apostolic church and of the Post-Apostolic Age. The name of Jesus was still included in the earliest threefold formula, which was introduced in the Age of the Greek Apologists and used in the early Old Catholic Age. Early trinitarians in the Old Catholic Age such as Tertullian and Origen omitted the name of Jesus altogether, using the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The common pastors and laity were not as quick to change the baptismal formula. Various popular writings and the Treatise on Rebaptism indicate that in the first part of the Old Catholic Age the Jesus Name formula was still dominant and that in the latter part of the age it was still widespread. The Treatise on Rebaptism and the controversy between Cyprian and Stephen reveal that both splinter groups and groups within the institutional church still practiced baptism in the name of Jesus throughout the age.

Clearly, the Jesus Name formula was not replaced overnight. Even when theologians began to advocate the trinitarian formula, they were careful to affirm respect for the original and still popular formula. Gradually, during a time of coexistence and compromise, the trinitarian formula gained ascendancy and eventually replaced the Jesus Name formula in the institutional church.

Evidently, the primary impetus for the newer formula was controversy over the Godhead. Trinitarian theologians began to emphasize the trinitarian formula as a means of combatting first modalism and then Arianism. By the end of the age the trinitarian formula had become dominant.



Footnote references:

Chapter 8. Baptism in the Name of Jesus.

1Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 571-73; Heick, 1:53, 87; J. F.

Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen and Company, 1933), 25, 378; Kirsopp Lake, in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2:389; Jean Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity vol. 1 of The Development of Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea, John A. Baker, ed. and trans. (London: Darton, Lonman, and Todd, 1964), 323; Wilhelm Bousset,

Kyrios Christianity—A History of the Belief in Christ from, the Beginning of Christianity to Irenaeus, 5th ed., trans. John Steely (New York: Abingdon, 1970), 292; David A. Reed, Origins and Development of the Theology of Oneness

Pentecostalism in the United States (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1978), 220; Williston

Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947), 58. For further citations, see William

Chalfant, Ancient Champions of Oneness (1979; reprint, Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1982), chap. 5.

2James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 147.. W. Danker,



49

Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300

by David K. Bernard

©1991 David K. Bernard

Printing History: 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998

Chapter 9

Oneness Concepts in Popular Belief

Page 129-142

As we have seen, the theologians of the Old Catholic Age whose writings remain were predominantly trinitarian of one sort or another. As chapter 1 discussed, however, it is difficult to know just how representative these existing writings are and how many works that taught other views have been lost to us. We may never be able to reconstruct an accurate picture of the age as a whole.

Nevertheless, it is evident that Oneness views were prevalent in the Old Catholic Age, particularly among the common believers. Oneness concepts appeared in the popular writings of the age, among the Montanists, and in the teachings of a prominent group that historians call the modalistic monarchians, or modalists.

Chapter 10 will analyze the doctrine of the modalistic teachers in detail, but for the purposes of this chapter we will use the term modalism in a generic sense to refer to a system of belief that simultaneously affirms the numerical oneness of God (to the exclusion of trinitarianism) and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ.



Oneness Views in Popular Literature

Although theologians during the Old Catholic Age began to speak in trinitarian terms, it appears that for many decades most believers continued to think and speak in terms of a basic, original Oneness belief.

To obtain a glimpse of prevalent views among the common people as distinguished from theologians and philosophers, of necessity we must quote primarily from apocryphal, anonymous, or pseudonymous books. We do not endorse these writings or all their contents, but in an incidental way the quotations show popular modes of thought.

The following quotations from popular Christian literature of the time indicate that many people thought of Jesus as the incarnation of the fullness of the one God. By “popular” we mean primarily “of the common people” and in a secondary sense “accepted among people in general; common; prevalent; liked by very many or most people.”

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (second century): “The Lord God, the Mighty One of Israel, . . . appear[ed] upon earth as a man. . . . God hath taken a body and eaten with men and saved men” (2:6).

Acts of Peter and Paul: Paul “gave thanks to the Lord and Master Jesus Christ,” and Christian Gentiles told their Jewish counterparts, “We . . . believe to be a Saviour the God whom you have forsaken in unbelief.”

Acts of Peter and Andrew: “Truly great is the God of Peter and Andrew, and I from this time forth believe in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts of John: “He . . . is higher and more exalted than every name that we speak of—our God, Jesus Christ.” This work includes a prayer to “God Lord Jesus Christ” and other prayers “in the name of Jesus Christ” but no trinitarian prayers. It also contains a Eucharistic prayer, which does not address Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as trinitarian Eucharistic prayers do, but instead addresses the Lord and describes Him as the one God revealed through His Son. “We glorify the name by which Thou has been called by the Father; we glorify the name by which thou hast been called through the Son; we glorify the resurrection which has been manifested to us through Thee; of Thee we glorify . . . Him called Son of man for our sakes, the truth, the rest, the knowledge, the freedom, the place of refuge in Thee. For Thou alone art Lord, the root of immortality, and the fountain of incorruption, and the seat of the ages; Thou who hast been called all these for our sakes, that now we, calling upon Thee through these, may recognize Thine illimitable presence, that can be seen only by the pure, seen in Thine only Son.”

The way in which these statements are woven into the text without explanation indicates that the authors simply assumed their view of God and Christ to be the accepted one. They did not see these Oneness statements as innovative, controversial, questionable, or confusing. They took for granted that their readers would understand and agree, and they probably did not even consciously think about the matter.

Historians today generally conclude that the common people of the Old Catholic Age thought in modalistic rather than consciously trinitarian terms.1 The following quotation describes the most common way in which modern trinitarian historians try to explain the prevalence of modalism or monarchianism in the Roman Empire. Perhaps the most popular contemporary explanation for this phenomena is that which sees the popular monarchian movement as being an initial reaction of the common Christians against the philosophical articulation of the common trinitarian creed and liturgy of the Church. On this view, the Church had always confessed a faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but had, with the exception of a few theologians (e.g. the Apologists), never explained, or even attempted to explain, this faith. . . . It had never occurred to most Christians, including most of the Church’s leaders, that there was anything to be explained in the Church’s triadic confession and liturgy prior to this late second-century controversy. It was only when the more educated among them began to attempt to think through this confession, largely in philosophical categories which were not familiar to the common Christians, that the problem of how God could be one and yet, in some sense, three first arose. It was in reaction to the initial solutions proposed by such educated leaders as Tertullian and Hippolytus that the modalistic monarchian interpretation of the faith was born. The church leaders’ interpretation emphasized the plurality of the Church’s confession, and tended towards subordinationism and/or tritheism. The common Christians of Rome, in contrast, opted for a theory which emphasized the unity and singularity of God in the Church’s creed and liturgy as well as the centrality of Christ in their worship.2

When we examine the New Testament and the Post-Apostolic Age it does not appear that the earliest creed, confession, liturgy, or faith of the church was primarily triadic or threefold with respect to God’s being. Nevertheless, this explanation offers insight into the predominance of modalism and the conflict between Modalism and trinitarianism.



Oneness Views among the Montanists

At the beginning of the Old Catholic Age, around 177, a group called the Montanists were expelled from the institutional church. The Montanists emphasized the work and gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues; the priesthood of all believers; the imminent return of Jesus Christ; and a life of strict morality, which later tended to legalism and asceticism. They were accused of teaching that their founder, Montanus, was the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, but apparently this charge arose because he gave divine prophecies in the first person.

The doctrine of the trinity was in its formative stages when the Montanists split away, so it is unlikely that the early Montanists were trinitarian. Later, some of them apparently embraced trinitarianism, and indeed a noted convert to Montanism, Tertullian, was later instrumental in developing the doctrine. It is not clear whether his trinitarian ideas were shaped in part by Montanism or whether he was largely responsible for injecting trinitarian ideas into Montanism.

The historical evidence indicates that many of the Montanists—perhaps all of them originally—did not adhere to a concept of plural persons in the Godhead but affirmed the absolute deity of Jesus. Didymus stated that the church did not recognize the baptism of the Montanists because they held to modalism and did not baptize in the three persons of the trinity (On the Trinity, 2:15).3 Apparently, they used the Jesus Name formula. The Council of Constantinople identified the Montanists as modalists (canon 7).4 Hippolytus twice identified some of the Montanists as modalists (Refutation of All Heresies 8:12; 10:22). And according to Pseudo-Tertullian in Against All Heresies, one group of Montanists were modalists (7:2).5

Jaroslav Pekilan concluded that some Montanists as well as many other Christians embraced a form of modalism.



One party among the Montanists . . . [seems] to have embraced the doctrine that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only successive modes of manifestation of the one God. . . . Such language about the Trinity was in itself quite acceptable in the second century, and even later. . . . [Thus] some Montanists held to a naive formula for the Trinity that was shared by other Christians.6



Modalistic Monarchianism

The most significant movement for our discussion is what historians call modalistic monarchianism, or modalism. The label means that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes (manifestations, not persons) of the Monarchy (the one sovereign God). “Modalistic monarchianism, conceiving that the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, took exception to the ‘subordination’ of some church writers and maintained that the names Father and Son were only different designations of the same subject, the one God, who ‘with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to His appearance in humanity is called the Son.’”7

The practical effect of this doctrine was to emphasize both the absolute oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. The modalists viewed “Jesus as the incarnation of the Godhead” and “the Father incarnate.”8

According to Heick, they rejected the Logos-Christology of trinitarianism as Gnostic, and “the chief interest of Modalism was to maintain Christian monotheism without sacrificing the divinity of Christ.”9

Pelikan views modalism as the logical expression of the existing faith of the average Christian. “Modalistic Monarchianism . . . may be defined as an effort to provide a theology for the language of devotion. . . . Both monotheism and the deity of Christ were safeguarded. . . . This doctrine of the relation between Christ and God turns out to have been a systematization of popular Christian belief.”10

The most prominent exponents of modalism known to us were Praxeas of Asia Minor, Noetus of Smyrna, and Sabellius of Libya. They taught in Rome in the late second and early third century. Other modalists were Epigonus, a disciple of Noetus; Cleomenes, a disciple of Epigonus; and probably Commodian, a North African bishop. In addition, it appears that at least three Roman bishops— Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus—embraced this view.

According to the renowned historian Adolph Harnack, modalism was the official theory in Rome for almost a generation, was at one time “embraced by the great majority of all Christians,” and was the most dangerous rival to trinitarianism from 180 to 300.11 Heick concurred: “Modalism became very widespread and influential in the West . . . . The doctrine that God in toto was incarnate in Jesus . . . was the dangerous opponent of the Logos-Christology between A.D. 180 and A.D. 300.”12

Why was modalism not mentioned or not “dangerous” earlier? As this chapter and chapter 10 document, basic Oneness belief was predominant everywhere in earlier times; and as chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 document, Trinitarianism was just developing around 180. Therefore, before 180 there was no significant controversy over the trinity, and no modalistic teachers were singled out for attack.



Dynamic Monarchianism

Historians distinguish the modalistic monarchian teachers from other teachers they call the dynamic monarchians although, as the labels indicate, both sets of teachers defended God’s oneness against trinitarianism. Of the two, the modalists were far more numerous and influential. Philip Schaff explained the difference:



The rationalistic or dynamic Monarchians . . . denied the divinity of Christ, or explained it as a mere ‘power’ (dunamis). . . . Modalistic Monarchians . . . identified the Son with the Father, and admitted at most only a modal trinity, that is a threefold mode of revelation, but not a tripersonality. . . . The latter was by far the more profound and Christian, and accordingly met with the greater acceptance.13



The following teachers are usually identified as dynamic monarchians: Theodotus of Byzantium; Artemon of Syria; Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, its most noted exponent; and perhaps an early group known as the Alogi. Louis Berkhof described Paul’s views as follows:



The Logos was indeed homoouios or consubstantial with the Father, but was not a distinct Person in the Godhead. He could be identified with God, because He existed in Him just as human reason exists in man. He was merely an impersonal power, present in all men, but particularly operative in the man Jesus. By penetrating the humanity of Jesus progressively, as it did that of no other man, this divine power gradually deified it. And because the man Jesus was thus deified, He is worthy of divine honour, though He cannot be regarded as God in the strict sense of the word.14



Paul’s opponent Malchion charged in his Epistle against Paul of Samosata (270): “He put a stop to psalms sung in honour of Jesus” (2).

William Chalfant suggested that the dynamic monarchians may have held a form of Oneness belief but their trinitarian opponents misunderstood their emphasis on the true humanity of Jesus, which is essential to a consistent Oneness theology.15 While this suggestion is intriguing, it seems doubtful, at least based on existing evidence (which is admittedly indirect and fragmentary). The sources for information about these people are even more meager that the sources for the modalists, but it seems that dynamic monarchianism was similar to Unitarianism. As it has been described to us by ancient writers, it is incompatible with modern Oneness, so we will not investigate it further.



Evidence from Origen

Origen (died 254) of Alexandria was well acquainted with modalistic belief and opposed it vehemently. He taught that the Word in John 1:1 was a distinct person from the Father, but in his Commentary on John he admitted that most Christians did not agree. Like Tertullian, he attributed their belief to stupidity, although he also spoke of scholars who opposed his view.

“I am often led to wonder when I consider the things that are said about Christ, even by those who are in earnest in their belief in Him. . . . But when they come to the title Logos (Word), and repeat that Christ alone is the Word of God, they are not consistent, and do not, as in the case of the other titles, search out what is behind the meaning of the term ‘Word.’ I wonder at the stupidity of the general run of Christian in this matter. I do not mince matters; it is nothing but stupidity. . . . One of the names applied to the Saviour is that which He Himself does not utter, but which John records;—the Word who was in the beginning with God, God the Word. And it is worth our while to fix our attention for a moment on those scholars who omit consideration of most of the great names we have mentioned and regard this as the most important one. . . . They imagine the Son of God to be the utterance of the Father deposited, as it were, in syllables, and accordingly they do not allow Him, if we examine them farther, any independent hypostasis [personhood], nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence of His own. For no one can understand how that which is said to be ‘Word’ can be a Son. And such an animated Word, not being a separate entity from the Father, accordingly as it, having no subsistence, is not a Son” (1:23).

Commenting on the last portion of John 1:1, Origen wrote, “Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son” (2:2).

Origen identified four classes of people who believe in God, two of which are significant to our discussion. The first class is those who have faith in both God and the Word; the second is those “who know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, considering that the Word made flesh is the whole Word, and knowing only Christ after the flesh. Such is the great multitude of those who are counted believers” (2:3). “God the Logos is God, perhaps of those who attribute everything to Him and who consider Him to be their Father” (2:3).

Origen acknowledged that some people used John 2:19 to show “that the Son did not differ in number from the Father, but that both were one, not only in point of substance but in point of subject, and that the Father and the Son were said to be different in some of their aspects but not in their hypostases [persons]” (10:21).

Origen responded to the anti-Christian work of a pagan named Celsus, and in his tract Against Celsus he recorded much of Celsus’s comments about Christianity. In arguing against Christianity Celsus described its doctrine of God in modalistic terms, obviously thinking he was accurately characterizing its belief. “He describes our answer in the following terms: ‘Since God is great and difficult to see, He put His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with Him’” (6:69).

Origen acknowledged to Celsus that modalistic beliefs were common in Christendom. “[Some] deny that the Father and the Son are two persons” (8:12). “There may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them” (8:14). Origen made this admission to pagans he was trying to convert, although a proselyter usually does not disclose what he considers to be aberrant views within his own ranks. Evidently, modalism was so widespread that even its strongest opponents could not successfully push it into obscurity.

His Commentary on Titus also describes the belief: “They do not wish to seem to affirm two gods; they do not wish to deny the divinity of the Saviour; then they end by admitting merely two names, and one single person.”16

In On Prayer Origen objected to the prevalent practice of praying directly to Jesus Christ instead of to the Father through the Son.



Commodian

Commodian was apparently a North African bishop who wrote around 240, and it seems that he had a modalistic concept of God. If so, he was the only modalist from this age to have some of his writings preserved. Instructions for the Christian Life speaks of “the almighty God, the living Christ” (42) and “God-Christ” (80). Apologetic Poem Against Jews and Gentiles calls Christ “God Himself.”17 Commodian also wrote, “The Father went into the Son, one God everywhere.”18



Conclusions

Despite the limitations and uncertainties associated with our study, a careful analysis of the existing writings reveals that the majority of believers during much of the Old Catholic Age did not think in trinitarian terms but affirmed the numerical oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ.

It is difficult to be more precise in describing these beliefs. In the case of the popular literature, we have only brief statements in passing, not a systematic theology. In the case of the Montanists, we have only secondary sources. Origen’s writings show us that many people rejected his teaching in favor of Oneness concepts, but again, evidence from him is secondary. Commodian is a primary source, but his existing works only touch briefly upon the doctrine of God.

This is not to say that nothing of substance was written to teach Oneness concepts. To the contrary, Origen mentioned “scholars” who advanced a Oneness concept of the Word. He would hardly have called them scholars, especially when he was trying to disparage their views, unless the fact of their scholarship was undisputed and well known. It is safe to assume, then, that in this age Oneness views were expressed in scholarly study and exposition, both oral and written. But given the eventual triumph of trinitarianism, it is understandable that little primary evidence remains of Oneness concepts even though they were first dominant and later still prevalent in the Old Catholic Age.

The most fruitful area available to us for the investigation of Oneness concepts during this time is the teaching of the modalists. Although no writings of the leading modalists have survived, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and to a lesser extent, Novatian have given us descriptions of their doctrine. Chapter 10 analyzes the major modalistic teachers to ascertain what they believed and to compare their doctrine to modern Oneness.



Footnote references:

Chapter 9. Oneness Concepts in Popular Belief

1See Pelikan, 178-79.

2Gregory Boyd, “The Oneness View of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: A Critical Appraisal,” in “Papers presented to the First Occasional Symposium on Aspects of the Oneness Pentecostal Movement” [held at Harvard Divinity School, July 5-7, 1984] (Cambridge, Mass.: Jeffrey Gill, 1984), 183-84.

3Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Westminster, Md.: Newman

Press, 1963), 3:98-99.

4Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d. ser. (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 14:185. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations of Nicene and post-Nicene writings are from this work. Parenthetical numbers after quotes refer to book and chapter, or book, chapter, and paragraph. Parentheses inside quotes represent parentheses or brackets used by the editors.

5Pelikan, 104.

6Ibid., 104-5.

7“Monarchianism,” Encyclopoedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, 1964), 15:686.

8“Monarchianism,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Samuel Jackson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963), 7:454-58.

9Heick, 1:147, 149.

10Pelikan, 178-79.

11Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (London: Williams and Norgate, 1897), 3:51-54.

12Heick, 1:149.

13Schaff, History, 2:572-73.

14Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 78.

15Chalfant, 105-13.

16Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller, A History of the Early Church (New York: Collier, 1962), 4:148.

17Schaff, History, 2:856.

18H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), 1:583-84.



50

Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300

by David K. Bernard

©1991 David K. Bernard

Printing History: 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998

Chapter 10

Teachers of Modalism: Praxeas, Noetus and Sabellius

Pages 143-162

From our discussion to this point, it appears that in the Old Catholic Age the strongest and clearest Oneness concepts were expressed by teachers whom historians call the modalistic monarchians or modalists. Chapter 9 has briefly defined their basic position. We now turn to an examination of the specific beliefs of the leading modalistic teachers in an attempt to determine how their doctrine compares to modern Oneness.

Since none of the writings of the major teachers of modalism have survived, we must attempt to determine their views by reading the works of their opponents, a method that presents several difficulties. First, the record is scanty, and it is not sufficient to give us definitive information on many points. Second, we must take the doctrinal biases of the opponents into consideration. Deliberately or through lack of understanding, they may have distorted or misrepresented the views of the modalists. Third, in some cases we must rely heavily on descriptions written in the fourth century, a century or more after the major modalistic teachers lived. In the intervening time, much information was probably lost or garbled in transmission, and on many points the descriptions probably reflect the views of fourth-century people who opposed trinitarianism in one way or another and were accused of modalism.

We should also keep in mind the following caveat relative to our two primary sources:



We know of this conflict only through Hippolytus and Tertullian, two impassioned controversialists: when they wrote the books upon which we have to rely, Hippolytus was a schismatic and head of a little church in Rome, and Tertullian was a Montanist, a violent opponent of the church of the “psychics” and of the bishop of Rome.1



Praxeas

Our information about Praxeas comes from Against Praxeas by Tertullian. Since the name Praxeas can mean “busybody,” it is possible that Tertullian used a fictitious name for his opponent. Perhaps he was a prominent or popular leader whom Tertullian could not successfully attack openly, possibly the bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus. Although Roman residents familiar with the controversy surely knew whom Tertullian meant, perhaps believers in other areas did not. If Praxeas was highly regarded in various areas of the empire, perhaps Tertullian did not have much hope of success in opposing him directly but felt that he could achieve more by denouncing Praxeas’s doctrine without mentioning the man’s real name.

According to Tertullian’s report, Praxeas came from Asia Minor to Rome about 190 and taught his doctrine there. The doctrine spread everywhere, including Carthage, and stirred up a great controversy. Under pressure, Praxeas supposedly signed a retraction, but the doctrine sprang up again about twenty years later, which caused Tertullian to write his tract. References in Against Praxeas 1 and Against All Heresies 8 by Pseudo-Tertullian indicate that Victor, bishop of Rome (189-99), supported the teaching of Praxeas. Evidently, the Roman church already had the basic concept before the time of Praxeas, so that he was readily received when he arrived there. Against Praxeas reveals that the doctrine existed everywhere: “The tares of Praxeas had then everywhere shaken out their seed” (1). In a sarcastic and condescending passage, Tertullian admitted that most Christians embraced this doctrine and opposed trinitarianism on the ground that it destroyed monotheism. “The simple, indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia [economy, dispensation]. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity” (3).

Significantly, the “majority of believers” opposed trinitarianism. Tertullian tried to explain away this uncomfortable fact by arguing that, after all, the majority of believers are always simple and, if the truth were known, ignorant.

In rejecting trinitarianism, they appealed to the “rule of faith”—a confession of basic doctrine, probably a confession made at baptism. In Against Heresies Irenaeus quoted the rule of faith as teaching one God the Father, the incarnation of Christ Jesus the Son of God, and the gift of the Holy Spirit (1:10:1; 3:6:4). Either the church did not regard this statement as trinitarian at all, or else Irenaeus did not truly record the earliest rule of faith. The central tenet of the earliest Christian confession was evidently God’s oneness, not a statement of threeness.

Praxeas and his followers emphasized God’s oneness and complained that Tertullian and his followers taught two or three gods. “They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered [did not] constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)” (3). In support of this teaching, the modalists cited passages such as Isaiah 44:6 and 45:5, 18.

In particular, the modalists objected to the concept of a plurality of persons and maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit were three titles of one God. “[They think] that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person” (2). “They contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit” (9).

Praxeas emphasized the full deity of Jesus Christ and used passages such as John 10:30 and John 14:9-10 to identify Him as the Father incarnate. “He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ” (1). “God Himself, the Lord Almighty, . . . in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ” (2). “You make Christ to be the Father” (28).

He denied that the Word was a second person. “You will not allow [the Word] to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth” (7).

Likewise, he denied that the Father and the Son were two persons. Instead, “Father” refers to the one God in His invisible divine nature, but according to Luke 1:35, “Son” refers to His manifestation in flesh. “[Praxeas maintains] that He is invisible as the Father, and visible as the Son” (14). “He was visible indeed in the flesh, but was invisible before His appearance in the flesh; so that He who as the Father was invisible before the flesh, is the same as the Son who was visible in the flesh” (15). “All in one Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that is God, that is Christ. . . . See, say they, it was announced by the angel: ‘Therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh that was born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of God” (27).

Praxeas said the Holy Spirit is not a third person; rather, the title refers to the one God’s nature as Spirit. According to John 4:24, the Father is the Spirit. “You insist upon it that the Father Himself is the Spirit, on the ground that ‘God is a Spirit’ ” (27).

Praxeas apparently taught that the name of Jesus fully reveals God, which would indicate that he baptized in the name of Jesus. Tertullian wrote, “They more readily supposed that the Father acted in the Son’s name. . . . The point maintained by them [is] that the name of Christ belongs also to the Father” (17).

In response to the modalists, Tertullian quoted many passages of Scripture to show a distinction between the Father and the Son. He stated that he would prefer to believe in two gods than in their kind of God. “Were we even to maintain that they are two separate gods, as you are so fond of throwing out against us, it would be a more tolerable assertion than the maintenance of so versatile and changeful a God as yours!” (23).

Tertullian’s most famous charge against Praxeas was that his doctrine made the Father suffer and die. Since Greek philosophy taught that God was impassible (incapable of suffering), to many people this charge sounded quite damaging. It shows, however, that the early trinitarians did not believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ, for if it was abhorrent to think of God the Father suffering, why was it not equally abhorrent to think of “God the Son” suffering? In contrast to these trinitarians, in the Post-Apostolic Age Clement of Rome and Ignatius wrote about God’s sufferings in Christ.

Tertullian’s accusation caused the Praxeans to be labeled Patripassians, which comes from Latin words meaning “the Father suffered.” Some historians still use this label for modalism, but Praxeas denied that the Father died as to His deity. He explained that Christ died as to His humanity only—as the Son—but Tertullian refused to listen. “Very well, say you; since we on our side affirm our doctrine in precisely the same terms which you use on your side respecting the Son, we are not guilty of blasphemy against the Lord God, for we do not maintain that He died after the divine nature, but only after the human. Nay, but you do blaspheme; because you allege not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross. . . . They grant us so far that the Father and the Son are Two; adding that, since it is the Son indeed who suffers, the Father is only His fellow-sufferer” (29).

In concluding his polemic, Tertullian accused Praxeas of a Jewish concept of God, asserting that the doctrine of the trinity was necessary to separate Judaism from Christianity. “But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to the Jewish faith. . . . Now, what difference would there be between us and them, if there were not this distinction, which you are for breaking down?” (31).



Noetus, Zephyrinus, and Callistus

Our information about Noetus comes from Hippolytus.

Noetus was from Smyrna in Asia Minor, and he founded a theological school in Rome. His followers included Epigonus, Cleomenes, and Sabellius. Hippolytus bitterly charged the two Roman bishops after Victor

Zephyrinus (199-217) and Callistus (217-23)—with promoting the views of Noetus. Callistus excommunicated both Hippolytus and Sabellius.

In The Refutation of All Heresies Hippolytus acknowledged how widespread the doctrine of Noetus was, saying, “no one is ignorant” of it (9:5). Moreover, he stated that because of the two Roman bishops’ help, this doctrine was able to “prevail” (9:2).

Like Praxeas, Noetus emphasized the absolute oneness of God and denied that the Father and the Son were two persons. Instead, “Father” and “Son” refer to the same being but in different manifestations. “Noetus affirms that the Son and the Father are the same” (9:5). “For in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to the vicissitude of times” (9:5). “Noetus asserts that there is one Father and God of the universe, and that He made all things. . . . And the Noetians suppose that this Father Himself is called Son, (and vice versa,) in reference to the events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally” (10:23).

Specifically, the title “Son” relates to the Incarnation. Hippolytus reported the position of Noetus on this point while distorting it to make it sound absurd. “When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another’s” (9:5).

Similarly, Callistus explained that “Father, Son, and Spirit” are three titles of one being. “Son” refers to the humanity of Christ, and the divine Spirit in Christ is actually the Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit.

“Callistus alleges that the Logos Himself is Son, and that Himself is Father; and that though denominated by a different title, yet that in reality He is one indivisible spirit. And he maintains that the Father is not one person and the Son another, but that they are one and the same. . . . And he affirms that the Spirit, which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same. . . . For that which is seen, which is man, he considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son, to be the Father. ‘For,’ says (Callistus), ‘I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one. For the Father, who subsisted in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this Person being one, cannot be two.’” (9:8). “For Spirit, as the Deity, is, he says, not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore this one person, (according to Callistus,) is divided nominally, but substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to be God, and affirms that there was in the case of the Word an incarnation” (9:23).

In Against the Heresy of One Noetus Hippolytus repeated Tertullian’s accusation of Patripassianism. “[Noetus] alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died”

(1). Noetus explained, “Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself” (2).

According to Hippolytus’s Refutation, Zephyrinus and Callistus responded much as Praxeas had, explaining that Christ suffered as to His humanity—as the Son. Since the deity (Father) dwelt in the Son, the most that could be said was that the Father suffered with the Son. “[Zephyrinus said,] ‘I know that there is one God, Jesus Christ; nor except Him do I know any other that is begotten and amenable to suffering. . . . The Father did not die, but the Son’” (9:6). “Callistus contends that the Father suffered along with the Son; for he does not wish to assert that the Father suffered” (9:8). “He is disposed (to maintain), that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him” (9:23).

Because of this explanation, Hippolytus accused Callistus of compromising modalism and combining it with the doctrine of Theodotus, a dynamic monarchian.

Consequently, some historians divide the modalists into two different categories: those who said the Father suffered (Patripassians) and those who said the Father only suffered with the Son. It is possible that Noetus held to an unsophisticated form of modalism, but it seems more likely that the views of Callistus and Noetus were compatible, for Praxeas had earlier given much the same explanation, and the identification of the Son with the humanity of Christ is essential to any consistent form of Oneness. Moreover, Hippolytus definitely wished to paint the worst possible picture of Callistus, and one way he did so was to accuse him of dishonesty and compromise.

At the same time, it is possible that Callistus was guilty of compromise in some way, for according to Hippolytus, he excommunicated Sabellius and was accused by him of having “transgressed his first faith” (9:7).

Hippolytus’s linking of Callistus with Theodotus is a point in favor of Chalfant’s speculation that Theodotus and the dynamic monarchians were closer to Oneness than history has portrayed them. If Hippolytus misunderstood Callistus’s doctrine of the Son, perhaps he and other trinitarians misunderstood Theodotus as well.

The allies of Noetus accused Hippolytus of polytheism. “[Zephyrinus] called us worshippers of two gods” (9:6). “[Callistus] reproach[ed] to us, ‘Ye are Ditheists’” (9:8).

In Against Noetus, Hippolytus reported that Noetus used the following passages of Scripture to support his doctrine: Exodus 3:6; 20:3; Isaiah 44:6; 45:14; John 10:30; 14:9; Romans 9:5.

Noetus protested against the trinitarian use of “Son” and “Word” as equivalent in terminology and denied that the Word was a second person. “But some one will say to me, You adduce a thing strange to me, when you call the Son the Word. For John indeed speaks of the Word, but it is by a figure of speech” (15).

Noetus affirmed the full deity of Jesus Christ and his identity as the Father incarnate. “He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself’ (1). “[They say,] If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God” (2). “You see, then, he says, that this is God, who is the only One, and who afterward did show Himself, and conversed with men.” (2). When Noetus met with his opponents, he asked, “What evil, then, am I doing in glorifying Christ?” (1).

In recording the statements of Zephyrinus on this subject, Hippolytus has given us the oldest known doctrinal pronouncement of a Roman bishop. Ironically, the Roman Catholic Church, which is trinitarian, considers Zephyrinus to be a pope, and it holds that an official doctrinal pronouncement by a pope is infallible. At least two Roman bishops endorsed modalism—Zephyrinus and Callistus and no doubt they considered their position to be consistent with all the bishops before their time. Sometime later, another Roman bishop, Stephen, still endorsed baptism in the name of Jesus. (See chapter 8.)



Sabellius

`Sabellius was apparently the most prominent modalist teacher, for in later times the modalists became known as Sabellians and the Nicene and post-Nicene writers referred primarily to him. Yet we know less about him than we do about Praxeas and Noetus, and what we know of him is primarily from fourth-century writers such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, who wrote well over one hundred years after his ministry. In many cases it seems that these writers described people in their own time who either called themselves Sabellians or were accused of Sabellianism, instead of the views of Sabellius himself.

Sabellius probably came from Libya. He apparently preached in Rome about 215, during the time of Zephyrinus and Callistus. According to Hippolytus, he was excommunicated by Callistus, who nevertheless adhered to a form of modalism also and who excommunicated Hippolytus as well. If this report is true, perhaps Callistus expelled both men as a compromise to bring harmony, or perhaps he objected to some points in the theology of Sabellius. Later, “Sabellius was condemned by a Council held at Rome, probably in 258; again at Nicea [325], and again at Constantinople [381], where Sabellian baptism was pronounced invalid.”2

From the descriptions of later writers, it seems that Sabellius affirmed the same points as the earlier modalists with a possible addition: he may have taught that the manifestations of Father, Son, and Spirit were strictly successive and did not occur simultaneously. If so, in this respect he does not represent the views of the older modalists or of modern Oneness. Pelikan said it is “somewhat dubious” as to whether Sabellius actually taught this point.3 It is easy to see how trinitarians could have misunderstand his explanation of the progressive revelation of Father, Son, and Spirit in redemptive history (Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration) and not realize that these roles could be simultaneous as well. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how anyone could argue that these roles are strictly successive in light of scriptural passages that mention two or more simultaneously.

The following descriptions summarize what is typically said of Sabellius.



God is a Unity (Monas). There are no distinctions in the divine Being, but God the divine Unity reveals himself successively in three different modes or forms (onomata, prosopa) [names, faces]. In the Father, God reveals himself as creator; in the Son, as redeemer; and in the Spirit, as sanctifier. These are not three hypostases [persons]; they are rather three roles or parts played by the one person. In other words, all three are one and the same person. . . . After the prosopon of the Father accomplished its work in the giving of the law, it fell back into its original condition. Advancing again through the incarnation as Son, it returned by the ascension into the absolute being of the Monad. It revealed itself finally as the Holy Spirit, to return again, after securing the perfect sanctification of the Church, into the Monad that knows no distinctions, there to abide through all eternity. Sabellius characterized this process as an expansion and contraction.4

It is hard to determine in detail just what he taught. It is perfectly clear, however, that he distinguished between the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of its manifestation, which are represented as following one another like the parts of a drama. Sabellius indeed sometimes spoke of three divine persons, but then used the word “person” in the original sense of the word, in which it signifies a role of acting or a mode of manifestation. According to him the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence manifests itself. God reveals Himself as the Father in creation and in the giving of the law, as Son in the incarnation, and as Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification.5



Athanasius recorded that when Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote against the Sabellians the doctrine was widespread: “At that date certain of the Bishops in Pentapolis, Upper Libya, held with Sabellius. And they were so successful with their opinions that the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached in the churches” (On the Opinion of Dionysius 5).

Like the earlier modalists, Sabellius insisted upon the absolute oneness of God and taught that the Father and Son were not two persons. Athanasius said the Sabellians spoke of “a Son-Father” (huiopater), describing him as “one essence” (monoousion) instead of two persons of “same essence” (homoousion) (Statement of Faith 2).

He described the Sabellians of his day as follows: “Those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and the same Reality and Person, we justly proscribe from the Church, because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming man: for such are they whom Romans call Patripassians, and we Sabellians” (On Synods 2:6).

According to Discourse against the Arians 3:4, Sabellius was judged a heretic for saying “that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son” (3:4), and Sabellius said the “Father and Son are the same” (4:2:2).

Pseudo-Athanasius recorded the doctrine of expansion and contraction in Orations against the Arians. “Sabellius also raves in saying . . . ‘the Father is the same, but is dilated into Son and Spirit’” (4:25). A Sectional Confession of Faith wrongly attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus likewise explains: “Sabellius . . . says that the Father and the Son are the same. For he holds that the Father is he who speaks, and that the Son is the Word that abides in the Father, and becomes manifest at the time of the creation, and thereafter reverts to God on the fulfilling of all things. The same affirmation he makes also of the Spirit” (7).

Basil gave a similar description of Sabellius’s view. “The same God, being one in matter, was metamorphosed as the need of the moment required, and spoken of now as Father, now as Son, and now as Holy Ghost” (Letters 210). In the same letter Basil argued against the Sabellians that Matthew 28:19 records three names, not one. “It is obvious, they urge, that the name is one, for it is not ‘in the names,’ but ‘in the name.’ . . . We must not suppose that here one name is delivered to us. . . . These are different names.” Moreover, he argued that the name described by Acts 4:12 is “Son of God.” This discussion indicates that the Sabellians probably baptized in the name of Jesus, linking the one name of Matthew 28:19 with the name of Jesus in Acts 4:12.

Basil further explained that according to Sabellius “the name of Son” represents God in “a descent to human interests” (214).

Like the earlier modalists, Sabellius did not equate Logos with Son in terminology but said the Logos was clothed with the Son.6 And like them he denied that the Father died as to His deity.7 This position indicates that he did not regard Father and Son as strictly successive but as simultaneous after the Incarnation, for He apparently held that Jesus died as the Son but the divine nature incarnate in Jesus—the Father—did not die.

The contemporary sources that we have for Sabellius are Hippolytus, who referred to him briefly, and possibly Novatian. Novatian described later modalists, who were evidently Sabellians. Significantly, Novatian’s description sounds much like the earlier accounts of Tertullian and Hippolytus. Neither he nor Hippolytus mentioned the questionable doctrine later attributed to Sabellius of successive manifestations by expansion and contraction.

In his Treatise concerning the Trinity Novatian acknowledged that the modalists were very numerous and used this fact to argue in favor of the deity of Christ. “Many heretics, moved by the magnitude and truth of this divinity, exaggerating His honours above measure, have dared to announce or to think Him not the Son, but God the Father Himself. And this, although it is contrary to the truth of the Scriptures, is still a great and excellent argument for the divinity of Christ, who is so far God, except as Son of God, born of God, that very many heretics—as we have said—have so accepted Him as God, as to think that He must be pronounced not the Son, but He the Father” (23).

He noted the following points in their doctrine: emphasis on the oneness of God, using passages such as Deuteronomy 6:4 and Galatians 3:20; emphasis on the absolute deity of Jesus as the Father incarnate, using passages such as John 10:30 and John 14:9; and identifying the title of “Son” with the Incarnation and the humanity of Christ, using Luke 1:35.

“The material of that heretical error has arisen, as I judge, from this, that they think that there is no distinction between the Son of God and the Son of man. . . . For they will have it that the self-same that is man, the Son of man, appears also as the Son of God; that man and flesh and that same frail substance may be said to be also the Son of God Himself” (24).

“For thus say they, If it is asserted that God is one, and Christ is God, then say they, If the Father and Christ be one God, Christ will be called the Father. . . . They are not willing that He should be the second person after the Father, but the Father Himself” (26). “And thus they who say that Jesus Christ is the Father argue as follows:—If God is one, and Christ is God, Christ is the Father, since God is one. If Christ be not the Father, because Christ is God the Son, there appear to be two Gods introduced, contrary to the Scriptures” (30).



Conclusions

Our investigation reveals that modalism was the dominant view among average Christians during much of the Old Catholic Age. Excluding passages in anonymous or pseudonymous literature and references to baptism in the name of Jesus, the following is a brief summary of the evidence. Significantly, this evidence does not come from advocates or promoters of modalism, who could be inclined to exaggerate, but from the most vehement opponents of modalism, who would naturally tend to minimize it as much as possible.

• Tertullian: “the majority of believers”; the doctrine was “everywhere.”

• Hippolytus: “no one is ignorant” of the doctrine; it “prevail[ed]” for a time.

• Novatian: “many heretics”; “very many heretics.”

• Origen: “the general run of Christian”; “many who are sincerely concerned about religion”; “scholars”; “the great multitude of those who are counted believers”; “some individuals.”

• Athanasius: “so successful”; the trinitarian doctrine of the Son “was scarcely any longer preached in the churches.”

The following list identifies the major beliefs that the modalists seem to have shared, followed by the names of those modalists we have specifically identified as affirming each point.

1. The absolute oneness of God (a denial of plural persons in the Godhead): Praxeas, Noetus, Zephyrinus, Callistus, Sabellius.

2. The absolute deity of Jesus (Jesus as the Father incarnate): Praxeas, Noetus, Zephyrinus, Callistus, Sabellius.

3. “Father” and “Son” refer to the same being, not two persons: Praxeas, Noetus, Callistus, Sabellius.

4. “Son” refers to the humanity of Christ, to the Incarnation: Praxeas, Noetus, Callistus, Sabellius.

5. The Word (Logos) is not a distinct person but is the Father Himself, particularly referring to His mind,expression, action, self-revelation: Praxeas, Noetus, Callistus, Sabellius.

6. Jesus is the name by which God is revealed to us (implying baptism in Jesus’ name): Praxeas, Sabellius.

7. Denial of the charge that the Father died as to His deity: Praxeas, Zephyrinus, Callistus, Sabellius.

8. The Father is the Holy Spirit: Praxeas, Callistus, Sabellius.

9. The Father is invisible, the Son is visible: Praxeas, Callistus.

From this comparison, it appears that the major modalist teachers were in agreement on the essential points of their doctrine. By contrast, the trinitarians of the age denied these points. It is also interesting to compare these positions with the teachings of Irenaeus. He definitely taught points 6 and 9. Unlike the other two major writers of this age—Tertullian and Origen—he never wrote against modalism. In reference to points 1, 2, and 5, he affirmed that God is one, that Jesus is God, and that the Word is the mind and revelation of God the Father.

It is evident that the modalists affirmed the essential tenets of Oneness, for anyone who agrees with points 1 and 2 meets the definition of Oneness given in chapter 1, and the other points follow from the first two. Moreover, Oneness adherents today affirm the nine points listed.

Some cautionary notes are in order, however. First, the historical evidence is insufficient to establish with certainty that all the modalists baptized in the name of Jesus. It appears that their doctrine requires it, that many people did so during this age, and that at least Praxeas and Sabellius did so. Second, we have no record of whether the modalists were baptized with the Holy Spirit, although a few clues in other references indicate that at least some of them were, including possibly Sabellius.8

Third, modern Oneness does not accept the expansion contraction, successive-manifestation theory attributed to Sabellius.

Finally, since we do not know with certainty everything the various modalists believed, it is not productive to identify modern Oneness directly with ancient modalism, Patripassianism, or Sabellianism. While the basic view of God seems to be fundamentally the same, there is no historical link. It is not appropriate to impute to the modern Oneness movement everything that the modalists taught or everything that various historians, ancient and modern, have attributed to the modalists. Oneness Pentecostals today should be evaluated by their own clearly expressed and well-documented position, not by ancient labels that mean different things to different people and that often prejudice people’s thinking.

In conclusion, despite the sparseness of existing historical records, it is clear that in the Old Catholic Age many people affirmed the two central tenets of Oneness as given in chapter 1. Although some form of Trinitarianism became dominant toward the end of this age, Oneness views were prevalent throughout the age and were predominant for much of the time.



Footnotes References

Chapter 10. Teachers of Modalism: Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius

1Lebreton and Zeiller, 4:149.

2Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d. ser., 7:350.

3Pelikan, 179.

4Heick, 1:150-51.

5Berkhof, 79.

6J. A. Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1870), 2:164.

7“Monarchianism,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962), 8:780.

8At least some of the Montanists were modalists, and they emphasized the Holy Spirit with tongues. (See chapter 9.) Although Tertullian stated that Praxeas opposed the Montanists, he did not rebuke the modalists for lack of spiritual gifts (including tongues), as he did the Marcionites in his tract against them (Against Marcion 5:8). Epiphanius said that Sabellius taught regeneration by the Holy Spirit. (See Chalfant, 133, 135.) Pseudo-Athanasius recorded a reference of Sabellius to the spiritual gifts of I Corinthians 12 (Orations against theArians 4:25).



51.

Our God Is One Talmadge French, 1999, page 216:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

"Generally, the Oneness position has been the complete harmonization of the Matthean expression with that of the Jesus' name form. But, interestingly, some Oneness arguments have appealed to textual critical scholarship which denies Jesus ever spoke the words recorded in the Matthew 28:19 account. More typically, it is maintained that the one apostolic formula is 'in the name of Jesus,' and the account in Matthew was interpreted by the apostles, including Matthew himself, to be the invocation of the name of Jesus."





P
52.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit."





R
53.

Remarkable Bible Discovery (1951) by William Phillips Hall

Or ‘The Name’ of God According to the Scriptures

Page 11

“As already noted, ever since, or since shortly after, the close of the apostolic age (about 100 A.D.) the Christian Church has used the words, ‘the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in baptism, while the Church of the apostolic age used in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the same rite, according to the Acts and the apostolic Epistles.

Some commentators have expressed the opinion that the Church of the apostolic age used the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in baptism, and that the Church afterwards substituted the used of the words, ‘the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ in place thereof. As a matter of historical record such appears to have been the case.”

Page 12

“There is not the least doubt that the baptisms in the Acts (and the Epistles) were in the name of Jesus only, neither they nor the Church of the apostolic age ever literally repeated the words ‘Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’ in baptizing anybody, so far as the New Testament bears witness.”

Page 13

“Lange’s ‘Commentary of Matthew’ (page 558) quotes Meyer, an eminent commentator, as follows: ‘No trace is to be found of the employment of these works (the name [titles] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost) by the Apostolic Church.”

“And Professor George T. Purves, D. D., in his book ‘Christianity in the Apostolic Age’, page 56, says: ‘The first record of their used (that is the used of the words, ‘the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’) in baptism is found in – ‘The Teaching of the Apostles[22]’ – written about A.D. 100. It is interesting to note that ‘the first record’ of the used of the words of the so-call ‘baptismal formula’ of Matthew 28:19 is found, not in the New Testament, but in an uninspired document, however much other truth it may or may not contain.”

“So far as historical research has shown, the only authority for the used of the words, ‘I baptize there (or, ‘… baptized’) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ is that of tradition, descending from uninspired and very remote

Page 14 continues

sources, but not from the original apostles or others in writing in the New Testament of the period including, and contiguous to, the Day of Pentecost.”

Page 26

“My unremitting study of Western Manuscripts fro the last 32 years has shown me more than 100 cases in which letters and words in the Western Manuscripts as first written have been altered – always in one direction, to take away from the Deity of Christ, and never in one single instance altered so as to bring out more clearly the witness of the first disciples to the Deity of Christ.”

Page 27

“It would have been a strange thing indeed if only the Western family of Manuscripts and versions had suffered deletions, omissions and substitutions:… the fact of such deletions and omissions has been known to textual critics for many years: … especially in accounts of baptisms and miracles.”

“Also noted are other omissions similar to those already shown in the Greek Manuscript readings and in the English versions derived therefrom.”



54.

Rowe’s History of the Christian People

Page 74

“Montanus… It was in this second century that the belief in the Spirit as differentiated from Christ (as a separate person) became the general belief of Christians, and the doctrine of a Trinity became prominent. Montanus seems to have been an early advocate of separating the Godhead into three persons (about 156 A.D.)”

Page 94

“Tertullian of Carthage accepted the teaching of Montanus, and coined the word ‘Trinity’ and brought the word ‘Trinity’ into theological use, about the year 200 A. D.”

“It is explained also that, since idol worshipers believed in many gods and practiced dipping three times in water for cleansing, these evangelists found their message was more readily accepted and understood when brought to them in terms similar to those of their own religion. Thus Tertullian’s purpose for introducing this new doctrine was to make it simpler and more acceptable by these pagans.”





S
55.

Seat Of Authority by James Martineau

“The very account which tells us that at last, after His resurrection, He commissioned His disciples to go and baptize among all nation, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder himself.”



56.

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible

Volume 1

Page 352

Subject: De Rabaptismate

De Rebaptismate 6.7.

The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood…, and dwells at length on the ‘power of the name of Jesus’ invoked upon a man by Baptism.”



57.

Summary of Christian Doctrine[23] by Louis Berkhof

Page 26

Concerning the Oneness of God in reference to Psalm 147:5 “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.”

Berkhof’s comment is: ‘The Great God of the Old Testament is the same Great God of the New Testament, and His name is Jesus (Psalm 147:5 and Titus 2:13).”





T
58.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary edited by Freedman, David Noel. New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary is a landmark work of scholarly thought. It clearly states:
"It is relatively certain that in the early Church one commonly referred to baptism as being done “into the name of the Lord Jesus” or something similar.”



59.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism."



60.

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles[24]

Volume 1

Prolegomena 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 Acts.

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 disciples 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 evidence" 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 cannot 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 unhistorical.

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 baptism.

"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."



61.

The Bible Almanac (1980)

Page 540 –541

The Early Church Under Christian Baptism:

The early Christians were baptized in Jesus name following Jesus example (cf. Mark 1:10, Gal. 3:27).



62.

The British and Foreign Bible Society published in 1960 a Greek Testament.

At Matthew 28:19 the phrase ‘en tO onomati mou’ (‘in my name’) is given as an alternative reading, Eusebius being cited as the authority.



63.

The Bible Commentary by Dr. Peake (1919)[25]

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.’”

The above reference is also found at: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm



64.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911)[26]

There has been a Theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. St. Paul (Acts xix) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name. “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts x, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles; “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins” (Acts ii). Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid. The authority of Pope Stephen 1 has been alleged or the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only.



65.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

Volume 2

Page 365

Here the Catholic acknowledges that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.



66.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1975)[27]

Volume 2

Page 263 also page 435[28]

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church (from Jesus name to the used of the Trinity formula).



67.

The Catholic Encyclopedia

Volume 2

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.”

The above reference is also found at: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm



68.

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. (1923)[29]

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 later development."



69.

The Clarified New Testament published by S.P.C.K.[30] (1964)

Volume One

At Matt. 28:19 the comment reads: “One would expect this name to be that of Jesus and it is surprising to find the text continuing with ‘the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost’. Which are no names at all. The suspicion that this is not what Matthew originally wrote naturally arises. In ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ we have the Trinitarian formula… which was associated with Christian Baptism in the second century as evidenced in ‘The Didache, Chapter 7.”



70.

The Complete IDIOT’S Guide To Biblical Mysteries Copyright © 2000 by Donald P. Ryan, Ph.D.

Chapter 2

God: The Biggest Mystery of Them All

Page 28

Section:

1+1+1=1?

“Christians[31] tend to believe that God is composed of three entities: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God the Father is the Great Creator and the God of the Old Testament. Christians believe that God sent His son, Jesus, to Earth for various theological reasons, and that Jesus was one and the same as God the Father.

The Holy Spirit is seen as yet another manifestation of God that can work through humans in special ways. This idea of God as three entities in one is known as the Trinity, and it is a difficult concept to grasp.”

Section:

Meet Me in Nicaea

“When the early Christian Church was developing, there were great debates regarding who Jesus was and what his relationship might be to God. Some thought that Jesus was just a special man sent by God, whereas others saw him as literally the son, or offspring, of God. A special meeting was held in A.D. 325 at Nicaea in what is now Turkey. There the official, basic beliefs of Christianity were laid down and the Trinity concept was officially endorsed.”

Page 29

Revelations:

“Both Jews and Muslims[32] have a difficult time with the Trinity. Judaism and Islam are strictly monotheistic, and they see this concept of God being three as sufficiently confusing to be suggestive of polytheism.”



71.

The Demonstration Evangelica (312 A.D.) by Eusebius[33] as translated by W. J. Ferrar (1920)[34]

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea in and around 325 A.D. and was present at the first Council of Nicea: 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.

On Internet at: www.intratext.com/X/ENG0882.htm (This is the Table of Contexts)

www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0882/_PY.htm (Actual page of information below)

Volume 2

Book 3

Chapter 6

Page 152

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 whatsoever I have commanded you.’”

The above can also be found at: http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0312_eusebius_proof.html also at: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0882/_PY.HTM



72.

The Dictionary of the Bible (1963)
Edited by James Hastings

Pg 88
BAPTISM
In order to rediscover the earliest statements on Christian baptism we must turn to Paul . . . 1 Cor. 6:11: " But you were washed, (OR BAPTIZED), you were sanctified, you were justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and in the Spirit of our God." The primitive church baptized “IN” AND "INTO" the name of "JESUS".
Pg 1015

TRINITY, THE: The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance IS NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS . . . The term Trias was FIRST USED BY THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (ca. AD 180), . . . NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE . . . The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Mt. 28:19, Not: No one was baptized using this formula, every one in the Bible was rather baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians do not know the name of the one spirit (God)



73.

The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)\

"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15).



74.

The Dictionary of the Bible (1965)
By John L. McKenzie S.J.
Pg 899
"The Trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of persons and nature which are GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS; ACTUALLY THE TERMS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE BIBLE. The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as essence and substance were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.



75.

The Doctrine of Baptism by Edmund Schlink[35]

Page 28

“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 from cannot be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in form expanded by the (Catholic) church.”



76.

The Encyclopedia Americana (1956)
Volume 27

Pg 294L
“ Christianity derived from Judaism was (and still is) strictly Unitarian[36] (Oneness believing that God is only one). Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early (Original Apostolic) Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary, and deviation from this teaching."



77.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Edition (1910)

Volume 2

Page 570

Column 2

Subject: ARMENIAN CHURCH

“A few other peculiarities of Armenian church usage or belief deserve to be noticed. In baptism the rubric ordains that the baptized be plunged three times in the font in commemoration of the entombment during three days of the Lord. In the West trine immersion was generally held to be symbolic of the triune name of 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'; This name the Armenians have used at least since the year 700 AD; before which date their fathers often speak of baptism into the death of Christ as the one essential. As late as about 1300 AD a traveler hostile to the Armenians reported to the pope that he had witnessed baptisms without any trinitarian invocation in as many as three hundred parish churches."



78.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Edition (1910)

Volume 3

Page 82

“Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Page 365

Column 2

Point #5

Subject: BAPTISM

The Baptismal Formula:

“The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The Teaching of the Apostles, indeed prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptism into the name of the Lord - the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen I, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.”

Page 366

Column 1.

‘Pope Nicholas, however (858 – 867), in the Respinsa ad consulta Burgarorun, allow baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi, as in the Acts.”

Column 1 continued

“Trine immersion then… invented to explain an existing custom, which the church had adopted from its pagan medium, for pagan lustrations were normally threefold.

“Ursinus, an African monk (in Gennad, de Scr. Eccl. Xxviii.) Hilary (de Synodis, lxxxv.), the synod of Nemours (A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid.”

“In Armenian writing this interpretation is further associated with the idea of baptism into the death of Christ.”

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century.

Page 368

Column 1

Point #12

Use of the Name:

“For a name carried with it, for those who were so blessed as to be acquainted with it, whatever power and influence its owner wielded in heaven or on earth or under the earth. A vow or prayer formulated in or through a certain name was fraught with the prestige of him whose name it was”

“Baptism then in the name or through the name or into the name of Christ placed the believer under the influence and tutelage of Christ’s personality. Nay, more, it imported that personality into him, making him a limb or member of Christ’s body, and immortal as Christ was immortal.”

Column 2

Point #13

Origin Of Christian Baptism:

“We gather from Acts xix.4, that John had merely baptized in the name of the coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. The apostolic age supplied this identification, and the normal use during it seems to have been ‘into Christ Jesus’ or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,’ or ‘of Jesus Christ’ simply, or ‘of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Paul explains these formulas as being equivalent to ‘into the death of Christ Jesus,’ as if the faithful were in the rite raised from death into everlasting life. The likeness of the baptismal ceremony with Christ’s death and resurrection ensured a real union with him of the believer who underwent the ceremony, according to the well-known principle in sacris simulata pro veris accipi.”

“As a rule the repentant underwent baptism in the name of Christ Jesus, and washed away their sins before hands were laid upon them unto reception of the Spirit.”



79.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Edition (1910)

Volume 17

Page 897

Column 2

Subject: MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF ST.

“The baptismal formula in Matt. Xxviii. 19 is however, peculiar, and in view of its non-occurrence in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament must be regarded as probably an addition.”



80.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Edition (1910)

Volume 26

Subject: THEOLOGY

Page 774

Column 2

The "Rule of Faith":
”The ‘Rule of Faith’ (Irenaeus; Tertullian, who used the exact expression; and Origen [one of the most eminent of Greek fathers c. 185]; these men helped to develop and write these ‘Rules of Faith’) which is that summary of religiously important facts which was meant to ward off error without reliance on speculations such as the Logos doctrine. This 'Rule of Faith' built itself up along the lines of the baptismal formula of Matt. xxviii. 19. There are traces in the New Testament of baptismal confession simply of the name of Christ (1 Cor. i. 13, 15; Rom. vi. 2; cf. even the late verse Acts viii. 37) not of the threefold name. Moreover, textual criticism points to an early type of reading in Matt. xxviii. 19 without the threefold formula. Still, it is strange how completely this seemingly isolated passage takes command of the development of early theology."

“Out of the ‘Rule of Faith’ there came in time what tradition miscalls the ‘Apostles Creed’ – the Roman baptismal creed.”

“Thus if Harnack is right by calling this change of leaving Scriptural truths and instead using a New Testament canon (a paper or document written to state what someone thinks is the truth of a particular passage or subject of the Bible, and is excepted by the ‘Church’ as full truth – most are not kept within the true meaning and frame work of the Word Of God) as one that no longer is ‘scriptural faith’ (established by God Himself) the starting – point but rather the ‘Rule of Faith’ (a paper written by carnal man) is.”



81.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics[37] by James Hastings, ed., New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (1951)

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.”

It goes on to say: “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.”

Volume 2[38]

Page 389

“The earliest known formula is in the name of the’ Lord Jesus, or some similar phrase; this if found in the Acts, and was perhaps still used by Hermas, but by the time of Justin Martyr the trine formula had become general. It is possible that the older formula survived in isolated communities, but there is not much decisive contemporary evidence”



82.

The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

As found in:

Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

(Edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt)

1901, pages 275-288

By

Frederick C. Conybeare, from Oxford

Taken and Pursued From the Preliminary Effort Found in:

http://www.godglorified.com/Conybeare.htm

Tischendorf in his eighth edition of the Greek N.T. prints Mt 28, 19. 20 (with the trinitarian formula):



(19) p??e??e?te? TSA ??? µa??te?sate pa?ta ta e??? ßapt????te? a?t??? e?? t? ???µa t?? pat??? ?a? t?? ???? ?a? t?? a???? p?e?µat?? (20) d?das???te? a?t??? t??e?? pa?ta ?sa e?ete??aµ?? ?µ?? ?a? ?d?? e?? µe? ?µ?? e?µ? pasa? ta? ?µe?a? e?? t?? s??te?e?a? t?? a????? TSB aµ?? [(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, unto the end of the world. Amen.]



His apparatus criticus suggest that verse 19 stands in all patristic quotations in the form given above. In all MSS and versions the passage is so read, though it may be remarked that in the oldest Syriac MS the folio which contained the end of Matthew has disappeared. Others besides Tischendorf have assumed that the patristic citations of Mt. 28,19 endorse, with no exception, the received text. Thus Dr. A. Plummer in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (Art. on Baptism, p. 252) writes: "The baptismal formula in Mt. 28, 19 is in all authorities without exception." And Renan in his work Les Evangiles ch. X writes of this text as follows: "La formule du baptême s'est élargie et comprend sous une forme assez syncrétique les trois mots sacramentels de la théologie du temps, le Père, le Fils, le Saint-Esprit. Le germe do dogme de la Trinité est ainsi déposé dans un coin de la page sacrée, et deviendra fécond."



The following testimonia from works of Eusebius imply another form of text:



[Note: Many of the following passages are given in Greek in the original with few comments in English. Here I present the long Greek paragraphs in unaccented Greek, for the accurate accents go to the PDF at the top of the page (I used the Symbol font found in my Word processor)].



1. Comment. in Psal. Ed. Migne Vol. 23, col. 569 (where Eusebius also quotes Mt 15, 24 and Mt 10, 5.6): plhn alla prwtouV touV apo tou Israhl kalei... legwn Ouk hlqon ei mh eiV ta probata ta apolwlota oiokou Israhl (Mt.15:24) kai toiV apostoloiV de autou prwtoiV autoiV khrussein to euaggelion parhnei jaskwn XiV odon eqnwn mh apelqhte, kai eiV polin Samareitwn mh eiselqhte poreuesqe de mallon proV ta probata ta apolwlota oikou Israhl (Mt.10:5,6). Eita met ekeinouV prosetatte toiV eautou maqetaiV euaggelizesqai panta ta eqnh en tw onomati autou.



2. Ibid. col. 416: outoi (sc. apostoloi) prostacqenteV up autou tou swthroV maqhteusai panta ta eqnh, upo thV autou dunamewV empneusqenteV, thn eiV panta ta eqnh poreian steilamenoi, dihlqon kai ta barbara jula kai thn oikoumenhn dieddramon sumpasan



3. In Ps 65, 6, col. 653: sjodra de akolouqwV eipwn Ekei eujranqhsometa en autw, epijerei tw despozonti en th dunasteia autou tou aiwnoV nohseiV de kai touto autou legontoV akouwn tou swthroV Edoqh moi pasa exousia en ouranw kai epi thV ghV poreuonteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Dio kata men ton Akulan eirhtai tw exousiazonti en th dunasteia autou di aiwnoV



4. In Ps 67, 31-36, col. 720: yilh gar jwnh toiV autou maqhtaiV eipwn Deute akolouqeite moi kai poihsw umaV alieiV anqrwpwn, dunamei to ergon epoiei kai palin enteilamenoV autoiV kai eipwn poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Ergw thn dunamiV edeiknu kai auqoiV eipwn Dei khrucqhnai to euaggelion thV basileiaV



5. Ibid. Ps 76, 20, col. 900: opqV de en th qalassh h odoV autou gegone kai ai triboi autou en udasi polloiV kai wV ta icnh autou ou gignsketai, eish episthsaV th proV touV maqhtaV epaggelia autou jhsash poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou kai idou egw meq umwn pasaV taV hmeraV ewV thV sunteleiaV tou kosmou



6. In Ps 94, 3, col. 1222: poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh. Bouletai gar k. t. l.



7. Comment. in Isaiam, 18; P. G. tom. 24, col. 213: poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Poreuomenoi de jhsi koujoi ginesqe k. t. l.



8. Demonstr.Evang.I,3,p.5: eikwtos o swthr kai kurioV hmwn IhsouV o uioV tou qeou meta thn ek nekrwnanastasin toiV autou maqetaiV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh epi legei didaskonteV autouV threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin Ou gar ta MwusewV nomima didaskein panta ta eqnh parekeleusato, all osa autoV eneteilato. Tauta d hn ta en toiV euaggelioiV autou jeromena [of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: "Go and make disciples of all the nations,'' and added: "Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.'' For He did not bid them to teach the laws of Moses to all nations, but whatsoever He Himself had commanded: that is to say, the contents of the Gospels] [Online at: eusebius_de_03_book1.htm]



9. Demonstr. Evang. I, 4, p. 8 (where also quotes Is.2:3,4): TiV d ah eih o ek Siwn proeklhluqwV nomoV... (Is.2:3,4) all h o euaggelikoV logoV o dia tou swthroV hmwn Ihsou tou Cristou kai twn apostolwn autou ek thV Siwn proelhluqwV kai dielqwn panta ta eqnh; prodhlon gar wV apo thV Ierousalhm kai tou tauth prosparakeimenou Siwn orouV... o thV kainhV diaqhkhV autou arxamenoV taiV autou jwnaiV, aV proV touV autou maqhtaV pepoihto, jhsaV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh, didaskonteV autouV Threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin. Tina de tauta hn, all h ta thV kainhV diaqhkhV maqhmata te kai paideumata [For out of Sion shall go forth a law… (Is.2:3,4) what can it be but the word of the Gospel, "going forth from Sion" through our Saviour Jesus Christ, and going through all the nations? For it is plain that it was in Jerusalem and Mount Sion adjacent thereto, where our Lord and Saviour for the most part lived and taught, that the law of the new covenant began and from thence went forth and shone upon all, according to the commands which He gave his disciples when He said: "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant?]



[8 and 9 can be found Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm]



10. Demonstr. Evang. III, 6, col. 233, p. 131 D (which recurs in the Syriac Theophany, see Nr.14): O de swthr kai kurioV hmwn ouk enenohse men, ou tetolmhke de eni de rhmati kai mia jwnh jhsaV proV touV eautou maqhtaV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou, didaskonteV autouV Threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin, ergon ephge tw logw [With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and He joined the effect to His Word]



11. Demonstr. Evang. III, 6, col. 240, p. 136: o de mhden qnhton kai anqrwpinon dianohqeiV ora ei mh wV alhqwV qeou palin prohkato jwnhn autolezei jhsaV toiV eutelestatoiV ekeinoiV autou maqhtaiV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh kai pwV eipon an oi maqhtai tw didaskalw pantwV pou apokrinamenoi, touq hmin estai dunaton... Tauta h jhkantwn an kata to eikoV h dianohqentwn twn tou Ihsou maqhtwn, miaV prosqhkh lexewV autoiV o didaskaloV lusin twn aporhqentwn upeqeto, jhsaV kat orqwsin en tw onomati mou. Ou gar dh aplwV kai adioristwV maqhteusai panta ta eqnh prosetatte, meta prosqhkhV de anagkaiaV thV en tw onomati mou. Epeidh gar h dunamiV thV autou proshgoriaV tosauth tiV en, wV janai ton apostolon oti dh Ecarisato autw o QeoV to onoma to uper pan onoma, ina en tw onomati Ihsou pan gonu kamyh epouraniwn kai epigeiwn kai katacqoniwn. EikotwV, thV touV pollouV lanqanoushV en tw onomati autou dunamewV thn arethn emjainwn, toiV autou maqhtaiV ejhse Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou [who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, "can we do it?… "By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?"… But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME." For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of "In my Name." And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in my Name."]



12. Demonstr. Evang. III, 7, col. 244, p. 138 (Here is what, after dwelling on the ecumenical spread of Christianity Eusebius desires us, again this also occurs in the Syriac Theophania v, 49, without any difference): sunomologein me allwV autouV kekrathkenai tou tolmhmatoV h qeiotera kai wper anqrwpon dunamei kai sunergia tou jhsantoV autoiV Maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Touto oun eipwn episunhyen epaggelian, di hV emellon epiqarrein kai proqumwV epididonai sjaV autouV toiV parhghlmennoiV jhsi goun autoiV, Kai idou egw meq umwn eimi pasaV taV emeraV ewV thV sunteleiaV tou aiwnoV [I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man's, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: "Make disciples of all the nations in my Name." And when He said this He appended a promise, that would ensure their courage and readiness to devote themselves to carrying out His commands. For He said to them: "And lo! I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world."]



[10, 11 and 12 can be found Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm]]



13. Demonstr. Evang. IX, 11, col. 693, p. 445 (where is inserted an explanatory sc. Iudaeorum): Kai toiV ge autou maqetaiV meta thn ekeinwn (sc. Iudaeorum) paraithsin prostattei Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Outw dhta hmeiV men ta eqnh ton proanajwnhqenta kai proV tou patroV apestalmenon projhthn... egnwmen kai katedexameqa [And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' So, then, we that are the Gentiles know and receive the prophet that was foretold…] [Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_11_book9.htm]



14. (= 10). Mt. 28, 19. 20 is cited three times in the fifth book of the Theophania of Eusebius, published and translated by Dr. Samuel Lee in 1842 and 1843. Lee took his text from the Nitrian Codex of the British museum written in A.D. 411. The first citation is made in V, 17, as follows (cp. Lee Theoph. in English p. 298): "He (the Saviour) in one single word and in one single oracle, said to his disciples, Go ye and make disciples of all peoples in my name, and teach ye them every thing which I have commanded you. And the deed he made to follow the word. And forthwith (lit. ad instar eius) were made disciples in a brief time all the races of the Greeks together and of the barbarians. But the law was not in a book of the Saviour, but unwritten was by his command sown among all peoples."



15. (=11). Theophania V, 46: "But he who used nothing human or mortal, see how in truth he again conceded the oracle of God, in the word which he spake to his disciples, the weak ones, saying, "Go ye and make disciples of all the peoples... These things then (scil. How can we do this? How preach to the Romans etc.) his disciples of our Saviour would either have said or thought, so by a single addition of a word, he resolved the sum of those things of which they doubted, the sum of them he committed to them in that he said, ye conquer in my name (lit. in nomine meo proprio). For it was not that he ordered them simply and without discriminating, to go and make disciples of all peoples, but with this important addition, that he said, In my name (lit. in nomine meo proprio).



16. (=12). Theophania V, 49, p. 336: "I am again compelled to recur to the question of cause, and confess that they (the Disciples) could not otherwise have undertaken this enterprise than by a divine power which exceeds that of man, and by the assistance of Him who said to them: "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name." And when he had said this to them, He attached to it the promise, by which they should be so encouraged as readily to give themselves up to the things commanded. For he said to them Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world."



[14, 15 and 16 can be found Online at:

http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_theophania_06book5.htm]



We now give those passages of the earlier books of the Theophania in which Mat 28,19-20 is cited. The first of these is in III, 4, in Lee's version p. 159:



17. "Who, of those that ever existed, is the mortal man, ... who bore all this preeminence... and could effect so much, that he should be preached throughout the whole earth? and, that his name should fill the hearing and tongues of every people upon the face of the whole earth? But this no man has done excepting our Saviour alone, who said to his disciples by word and fulfilled it by deed: "Go and teach all peoples." [The Greek is given below in Nr. 20. It adds ?? t? `???µat? µ?? which must here have stood in the original. Here then we catch the Syriac translator in the act of garbling his text.] - and after a little (Lee p. 160): - “And who is that other (person) who, since the life of man was set up, ever sought to constitute a people after his name – a thing never yet heard of – and this not in a corner or obscurely in some part of the earth, but in the whole earth under the sun?”

[Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_theophania_04book3.htm]



18. The next passage is in IV, 8, Lee p. 223: "That at the outset he said that he would make them fishers of men, and in the end openly after his example they should make disciples of all peoples, together with his peculiar aid (or power). From the Gospel of Matthew:--



"After his resurrection from the dead, all of them together, as was commanded them, went to Galilee, as he told them. But when they saw him some of them worshipt him, but others doubted. But he drew near, gazed on them and said, All power in heaven and on earth is given to me of my father. Go ye and make disciples of all peoples, and baptise them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always even to the end of the world."



And after a little p. 225 he continues thus:--



“And on this account, he commanded his disciples, not from the first, but now, that they should go around and make disciples of all nations. But of necessity be added the mystery of cleansing. For it was right, that those who should be converted from among the heathen, should be cleansed by his power from all pollution and uncleanness; because they had been defiled by the error of demons, and had been holden by the worship of idols, and by uncleanness of all sorts but had now first been changed from that life of abomination and lawless practices. These very persons then, did he admonish to teach, -- after this cleansing which is by the mystery of his doctrine, -- not, that they should observe the precepts of the Jews, nor yet the law of Moses, but all those things which he commanded them to observe... He necessarily therefore stirred them up, and made them readily to confide, - to undertake the circuit of all peoples and to make disciples of all races of men, through the promise by which he counseled them, saying: Behold, I myself am with you.



19. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 5, 2: epi de th tou khrugmatoV didaskalia thn eiV sumpanta ta eqnh steilamenon poreian sun dunamei tou Cristou jhsantoV autoiV PoreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou [went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name".]



20. (=17). Oratio de Laudibus Constantini 16, 8 (p. 294 sq H): TiV pwpote... tosouton arethV aphnegkato... wV pantwn twn epi thV anqrwpon akohn kai glwttan emplhsai thV autou proshgoriaV; alla touto ge oudeiV h monoV eiV o hmeteroV swthr meta thn kata tou qanatou nikhn diepraxato toiV autou gnwrimoiV logon eipwn kai ergw telesaV poreuqenteV goun maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou, jhsaV autoiV, proeipwn te kai apojhnamenoV oV ara dei to euaggelion autou khrucqhnai en olh th oikoumenh eiV marturian pasi toiV eqnesin, ama logw tourgon ephgagen [What… has attained so great a height of excellence… as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' He it was who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel must be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and immediately verified his word]



[19 and 20 can be found Online at: (Look inside that site for the book: NPNF2-01)]



21. 22. In the Greek controversial works of [or “attributed to”] Eusebius Mat 28,19 is cited fully twice, viz. in the Contra Marcellum Ancyranum, p. 3, C; and De Ecclesiastica Theologia 5, p. 174, a. In both passages we have the textus receptus, and the context also implies it.

23. In a third passage, De Eccles. Theol. 3, p. 159 d, it is cited, but only as far as the word ????. The author [whoever it was] of these treatises which were written sometime after 336, and before 340, had the textus receptus before him, at least in the two passages.

24. The only evidence which remains is that of the letter, addressed by Eusebius after the council of Nicea, to his church of Caesarea. In this at the end of his baptismal creed, after the words p?ste??µe? ?a? e?? ?? p?e?µa ?????, is introduced a citation of Mt 28,19 in its usual form. This letter has only come down to us through the medium of Socrates the historian (I, 8, 38 p.23), who perhaps took it from the work of Sabinus. There is hardly reason to suspect an interpolation [but only from Sabinus to Socrates].



[Next, Conybeare comments on the points 23 and 24 and gives the summary thus far in 25]



23. The evidence of these later writings of Eusebius emphasizes by contrast the form of text preserved in the rest of his works. He seems to have found in the codices of Caesarea the following form of text:



p??e????te? µa??te?sate p??ta t? ???? ?? t? ???µat? µ??, d?d?s???te? a?t??? t??e?? p??ta ?sa ??ete???µ?? ?µ??.



Go disciple ye all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.



In passages 8 and 9, ?? t? ???µat? µ?? has perhaps been removed after ???? by a scribe who resented so unusual a reading [“Plerumque in codicibus Graecis, ubi Origenes, Eusebus, Apollinarius in medium afferuntur ad marginem scriptum observes, ?e?d?, mentiris. Incidi ego in centonem Colbertinae bibliothecae manuscriptum, qui ad singula Origenis, Eusebii, Apollinarii, etc., loca, singularem hanc cautionem, minio exaratam, in margine affert, `a???eµ? ???, anathema dzibi [dzoi]. Quamobrem miror hunc Eusebii commentarium ad nos usque devenisse.” Bernard de Montfaucon, Preliminaria in Eusebii commentaria in l’salmos.] Both passages occur at the very beginning of the treaties, and so caught the eye of the casual reader. Few can ever have methodically perused so long and learned a work, and therefore the work of correction [or I, the transcriber, must say, “the work of adulteration”] went no further. It is worthy to notice that in the Greek fragment of the Theophany given in Migne P. G. vol. 24, col. 629 the context involves that verse 19 as well as 18 should have been cited. Verse 18 however stands alone. Verse 19 must therefore have been left out by a copyist.



The passage from the Theophania take rank as independent evidence of the text used by Eusebius, although they repeat passages of his Demonstratio Evangelica and De Laudibus; for where a writer deliberately incorporates entire sections of an earlier work in a later, he must be held to endorse the character of the scripture citations which the earlier contains.



24. Nr. 18 of the above testimonies breaks the harmony of the other citations. The Syriac translator, obliged to render so long a consecutive passage of the Gospels, has merely availed himself of his Syriac vulgate; and copied out from it the entire five verses. Those familiar with Armenian or Syriac versions know how common was this device of saving labour. At first sight the comment upon this citation when it speaks of the "mystery of cleansing", seems to involve the presence of ßapt????te? in the original Greek; but the definition which immediately follows of this cleansing, [written] as being “by the mystery of his doctrine”, precludes the idea that the writer had in view the cleansing by the water of baptism, and rather suggests the exorcism at use of the name which preceded baptism, and were specially a "cleansing by his power" from the pollution of demons.



25. Thus we have [at lest] some 17 attestations of the reading ?? t? ???µat? µ??, to the exclusion of the words ßapt????te? and t?û pat??? ?aì t?û ???û ?aì t?û ????? p?e?µat??. We have also two passages viz. 8 and 9, favorable to it. One, viz. 18, that is doubtful. Two at least that are neutral. As a matter of fact there are other neutral passages, where the citation only extends as far as the words t? ????, but they where not worth while collecting.



Against this body of testimony we have three passages in the works of [or attributed to] Eusebius, in which the textus receptus of Mt 28, 19 is cited; and these all belong to the last period of his literary activity which fell after the council of Nice.



26. [More than] two writers earlier [and one contemporaneous, not quoted by Conybeare, which is Aphrahat the Persian Sage] than Eusebius, shew a knowledge of this shorter form of text; and neither of them formally cite the passage, but rather echo it. The first is Justin Martyr in the Dialogue with Tryphon (Trypho) 39, p. 258: On oun tropon dia touV eptakisciliouV ekeinouV thn orghn ouk epejere tote o QeoV, ton auton tropon kai nun oudepw thn krisin ephnegken h epagei, ginwskei eti kaq hmeran tinaV maqhteumenouV eiV to onoma tou Cristou autou kai apoleipontaV thn odon thV planhV, oi kai lambanousi domata ekastoV wV axioi eisi, jwtizomenoi dia tou onoma tou Xristou toutou [Therefore, just as God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ]



In another passage of his Dialogue [with Trypho], c. 53, p. 272 D, Justin glances at Mt 28, 19 (after quoting Gen. 49:11): Kai to Desmeuwn… (Gen. 49:11)… kai twn eqnwn omoiwV, twn mellontwn pisteuein autw, prodhlwsiV hn. Outoi gar wV pwloV asaghV kai zugon epi aucena mh ecwn ton eautou, mecriV o CristoV outoV elqwn dia twn maqhtwn autou pemyaV emaqhteusen autouV [ And that expression… (Gen. 49:11)… and also of that belief in Him which the nations would repose. For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them]



Here there is no confirmation or rejection of the words ?pì t? ???µat?; nevertheless the very occurrence of the passage strengthens the surmise that Justin was acquainted with Mt 28, 19, and really glanced at it in p. 258. In this latter place the words “and abandoning the path of error” indicates that it was the Gentiles and not the Jews that were daily being made disciples into the name.



The first of the above passages has been recognized by Resch in his Aussercanonische Parallelstellen as a citation of Mt 28, 19; but he sets it down, along with three of the passages above adduced from Eusebius, under the head of Abbreviaturem, or abridgements of the ordinary text. From such an error a wider reading of Eusebius would saved him.



27. The second passage is in the Pastor Hermae [Hermas, Hennas] and is a less certain reference, Simil. IX, 17, 4: panta ta eqnh ta upo gon ouranon katoikounta, akousanta kai pisteusanta epi tw onomati eklhqhsan [tou uiou] tou Qeou labonteV oun thn sjragida mian jronhsin escon kai ena noun ["all the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God. Having, therefore, received the seal, they had one understanding and one mind]



The above might almost as well be taken to echo Lc 24, 47, although Harnack commenting on the words p??ta t? ????, remarks: “Haec vox omnes expellit dubitationes; cf. Mt 28, 19.” It is to be remarked that Lc 24, 47 with its keynote: `a???µe??? ap? ?e???sa??µ, is seldom absent from Eusebius’ mind when he quotes Mt 28, 19; and the Lucan passage itself has the air of being a remaniement [confirmation] of the Eusebian text of Mt 28, 19. For Luke has merely added the words µet????a? eì? `afe??? ?µa?t???, and substituted ????????a?… e?? for µa??te?sate.



28. The earliest writer who cites Mt 28, 19 in a form approximating to the text established in the manuscript [textus receptus as in Tischendorf] of the Gospels, is the Gnostic Theodotus, whose literary activity cannot be precisely dated, but must have been as early as 160. It has been conjectured that he used the Gospel according to the Egyptians. An excerpt (§ 76) from his writings appended to the eight book of the Stromateis contains it (Sylb. P. 987):



Kai toiV apostoloiV entelletai periionteV khrussete kai touV pisteuontaV baptizete eiV onoma patroV kai uiou kai agiou pneumatoV [And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit].



Dr. P. M. Barnard who has collected the N. T. citations of Clement in a volume of the Cambridge Texts and Studies suggests, perhaps without good reason, that the [trinitarian] words in the above were added by Clement to the text of Theodotus. The use of the word pe??ó?te? suggests that in the third of our excerpts from Eusebius on the psalms col. 653 the impossible reading p?e??ó?te? is a corruption of pe??ó?te?. And this conjecture is confirmed by a neighboring passage in ps. col. 409.



In Rufinus’ version also of Origen in Numeros Hom. XII, 2, we have the following given as comment on 1 Pet 2, 6: “Apostoli… secundum praeceptum domini circumeuntes orbem terrae et implentes, quod mandatum est, ut doceant ommes gentes, baptizantes in nomine patris et filii et Spiritus sancti etc.” Here circumeuntes reflects pe??ó?te? in the original text. It may well be that this word which well fits in with the early belief in the pe???d?? of the Apostles was, if not original, at the least an early variant for p?e??ó?te? in Mt 28, 19.



The same reading pe??ó?te? is implied in the citation Nr. 18 of Eusebius by the Commentary which accompanies it: “he commanded his disciples that they should go around and make disciples of all nations”, and below: “he stirred them up… to undertake the circuit of all peoples and to make disciples of all races of men”. That, in the long extract which the Syriac translator makes from his vulgate, no equivalent to this phrase is to be found is additional proof that that extract is not to be relied upon as a faithful rendering of what stood in the text of Eusebius.



29. The textus receptus of Mt 28, 19 is found in the Latin version of Irenaeus III, 17, I; in Tertullian de Baptismo, c. 13 and De Praescriptione c. 8 and 20; in the ??da?? (Didache) 7, 1-4, where however it is suspect because of the occurrence in 9, 4 of the same document of the phrase of ßapt?????te? eì? ???µa ??????; in the Clementine Homilies XI, 26, and oftener in the Recognitiones as translated by Rufinus; in Hippolytus Contra Noetum; in the Acta Thomae, there balanced however by a rival gnostic formula.



30. Clement of Alexandria never cites Mt 28, 19 in his works as preserved to us. In the works of Origen preserved in Greek, Griesbach in his Symbolae criticae notes three cases of explicit citation of Mt 28, 19; but in each case the citation stops short at t? ????, leaving us in doubt how his texts continued, whether in agreement with those of Eusebius or with the received text. An indirect reference to the text in the contra Celsum II, 42, (I, 165, K.) points, though not conclusively, to the former alternative. The passage is this: kai aei orwnteV plhroumena ta eirhmena up autou, prin genhtai, to khrucqhnai to euaggelion en olw tw kosmw, kai poreuqentaV autou touV maqhtaV eiV panta ta eqnh ton logon autou kathggelkenai [And we, continually seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world, and that His disciples should go among all nations and announce His doctrine]. Here the last four words answer to these: “Teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. And it is significant that Origen gives no hint of the important precept to baptize in the triune name which in our texts intervenes.



31. If we could trust Rufinus’ versions of Origen’s homilies, we would have to admit that he used the textus receptus at Mt 28, 19 and even set store by it. But we cannot trust them. At the conclusion of his version of the commentary on Romans Rufinus boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”, “laborem adimplendi quae deerant” for this reason “ne pulsatae quaestiones et relictae, quod in homiletico dicendi genere ab illo fieri solet, latino lectori fastidium generarent”. The learned Benedictine editor deplores in the following words the zeal shewn by Rufinus for rewriting the author he professed to translate: “Sed utinam hoc labore adimplendi quae deerant supersedisset! Ex ejus enim licentia factum est, ut qui legit has homilias, incertus sit utrum legat Origenem, an Rufinum.”



The text Mt 28, 19 comes thrice in Rufinus’ version of the Commentar in Romanos, in V, 2 and 8; and VIII, 4. The last two passages smack of Rufinus rather than of Origen. No sane critic would undertake to say where Origen ends and Rufinus begins. “Vix certo distingui potest, ubi solus Origenes loquatur, aut ubi suas merces obtrudat Rufinus”, says De la Rue (monitum in Exodum). In Hom. Viii, § 4 in Exodum, as rendered by Rufinus comes the fourth reference to Mt 28, 19:



“Cum ergo uenimus ad gratiam baptismi, uniuersis aliis diis et dominis renuntiantes, Solum confitemur Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Sed hoc confitentes, nisi toto corde diligamus Dominum Deum nostrum… non sumus effecti pars Domini… et Dominum, ad quem confugimus, propitium non efficimus, quem non ex toto et integro corde diligimus.” Why is “Dominum” alone mentioned, if just before the trine formula had stood in the original Greek? The commentary awakes this suspicion in us.



Thus it is only in Rufinus’ work that the text Mt 28, 19 occurs; in three cases embedded in comment which smacks of him rather than of Origen, while in the other two the trine formula is in no way necessitated by the context.



32. It is true that Origen attests the use of the trinitarian formula [not mentioning it] of baptism, in his Greek commentary [if that comment was ever original of him, as that work has been “preserved” by the catholic church] on John tom. VI, § 17 (Origen's Commentary On The Gospel Of John: Book VI. 17. Of The Testimony Of John To Jesus In Matthew's Gospel) in the words used of the person baptized: tw empareconti eauton th qeiothti thV dunamewV twn thV proskunhthV triadoV epiklhsewn [to him who yields himself to the divine power of the invocation of the Adorable Trinity]. But because the trine epiclesis was used in his `a???????a of Baptism, it does not follow that the text Mt 28, 19 was in his copies of the N. T. anymore than in those of Eusebius [furthermore, before and after that quotation we read: “…the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures He wrought… are symbolical of those who at any time are set free by the word of God... the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water…”, so the isolated statement of the “adorable trinity” in that books smacks of another pro-Nicene interpolation]; and the same caution must be used in regard to the references made by Irenaeus [if written by him] and [by] Justin to the use of a trine formula in Baptism (see our note at the end *).



33. Cyprian of Carthage [called “saint” by the catholic church] used the text: “Baptising them in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, as a “battle-cry” in his strife with Pope Stephen: “Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt, foris extra ecclesiam, immo et contra ecclesiam, modo in nomine Christi,” ubicunque et quomodocunque gentilem baptizatum remissionem peccatorum consequi posse, quando ipse Christus gentes baptizari iubeat in plena et adunata trinitate? (Epist. 73 ad Iubaianum). And just before in the same letter: “Insinuat trinitatem, cuius sacramento gentes baptizarentur.” The official church of Rome however ignored his arguments, and adopted the position that baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite valid. As the canon of the Synod of Nemours (1284) expresses it: “Dicimus, infantem baptizatum esse, si baptizans dicit: Baptizo te in nomine Christi”.



It in some measure explains this decision of the Popes that the text of Mt 28, 19 was not yet authoritatively fixed by the church. That the Pneumatomachi of the fourth century retained the Eusebian reading can be inferred from the arguments used by and against them.



34. In his discourse: “de communione sub utraque species” addressed A. D. 1433 to the Council of Bàle (Mansi concilia XXXIX; col. 858), John of Ragusa used these words: “Dominus noster Jesus Christus ascendens in coelum praecepit apostolis dicens, Ite docete – Spiritus Sancti, in quibus verbis dedit eis et limitavit formam baptismi et in persona eorum toti ecclesiae. Et tamen non post longum tempus ipsi apostoli et ecclesia dimittendo dictam formam, in nomine Patris etc. traditam per Dominum baptizabant tantum in nomine Christi dicentes: Te baptizo in nomine Domini Jesu Christi” [Thomas Aquinas propounds the same [ill] argument [and he is considered “saint” and “doctor of the catholic church”] III, 9. 66, a. b., ad. I. John writes (l. c. col. 863): “Si enim immutaverunt Apostoli formam baptismi, quae dat essentiam sacramento, taliter ut si quis nunc in illa forma, qua ipsi apostoli, baptizaret, non esset baptismus, quanti magis potest ecclesia mutare vel tollere unam speciem…”]



[Aquinas, Thomas, sometimes called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics (1225-74). He studied under the German Scholastic philosopher Albertus Magnus, following him to Cologne in 1248. Because Aquinas was heavyset and taciturn, his fellow novices called him Dumb Ox, but Albertus Magnus is said to have predicted that “this ox will one day fill the world with his bellowing”. Early in the 13th century the major works of Aristotle were made available in a Latin translation, accompanied by the commentaries of Averroës and other Islamic scholars. The vigor, clarity, and authority of Aristotle's teachings restored confidence in empirical knowledge and gave rise to a school of philosophers known as Averroists. Under the leadership of Siger de Brabant, the Averroists asserted that philosophy was independent of revelation.Averroism threatened the integrity and supremacy of Roman Catholic doctrine and filled orthodox thinkers with alarm. To ignore Aristotle, as interpreted by the Averroists, was impossible; to condemn his teachings was ineffectual. He had to be reckoned with. Albertus Magnus and other scholars had attempted to deal with Averroism, but with little success. Aquinas succeeded brilliantly. Reconciling the Augustinian emphasis upon the human spiritual principle with the Averroist claim of autonomy for knowledge derived from the senses, Aquinas insisted that the truths of faith and those of sense experience, as presented by Aristotle, are fully compatible and complementary. Some truths, such as that of the mystery of the incarnation, can be known only through revelation, and others, such as that of the composition of material things, only through experience; still others, such as that of the existence of God, are known through both equally. All knowledge, Aquinas held, originates in sensation, but sense data can be made intelligible only by the action of the intellect, which elevates thought toward the apprehension of such immaterial realities as the human soul, the angels, and God. To reach understanding of the highest truths, those with which religion is concerned, the aid of revelation is needed. Aquinas first suggested his mature position in the treatise De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas (1270; trans. The Trinity and the Unicity of the Intellect, 1946). This work turned the tide against his opponents, who were condemned by the church. Aquinas was canonized by Pope John XXII in 1323 and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius V in 1567. More successfully than any other theologian or philosopher, Aquinas organized the knowledge of his time in the service of his faith. In his effort to reconcile faith with intellect, he created a philosophical synthesis of the works and teachings of Aristotle and other classic sages; of Augustine and other church fathers; of Averroës, Avicenna, and other Islamic scholars; of Jewish thinkers such as Maimonides and Solomon ben Yehuda ibn Gabirol; and of his predecessors in the Scholastic tradition. This synthesis he brought into line with the Bible and Roman Catholic doctrine. His two most important works are Summa Contra Gentiles (1261-64; trans. On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, 1956), a closely reasoned treatise intended to persuade intellectual Muslims of the truth of Christianity; and Summa Theologica (Summary Treatise of Theology, 1265-73), in three parts (on God, the moral life of man, and Christ), of which the last was left unfinished. Summa Theologica has been republished frequently in Latin and vernacular editions ("Aquinas, Saint Thomas," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]



John of Ragusa proceeded to infer that, as the Apostles deviated from their master’s precepts in regard to baptism, so the church had a right to set them aside as regards the Eucharist, by withholding the cup from the laity. I do not know if any will pursue his hypothesis a little further and argue that the apostles, when they “set aside the “formam traditam per Dominum”, also introduced the Eusebian form of text at Mt 28, 19”.



35. A different explanation of the dissonance between Mt 28, 19 and other baptismal formulas found in the New Testament has been breached by certain scholars, whose conclusions, lest I should appear to ignore previous workers in this field, I venture in conclusion to refer to, although, being based on no textual research, they hung entirely in the air and were merely happy guesses [such of that guesses next].



Canon Armitage Robinson inclines to the view (Art. Baptism in Encyclopaedia Biblica) that Matthew “does not here report the ipsissima verba of Jesus, but transfers to him the familiar language of the church of the Evangelist’s own time and locality”.



The German scholar Teller in Exc.2 of his edition of Burnet: De Fide et officiis christianorum, Halae, 1786, p. 262, disputed the genuineness of the text. So did Evanson, vicar of Tewkesbury in his letter to Hurd Bp of Worcester, 2nd Ed. London 1792. Harnack remarks (Dogmengeschichte I, 68): “Dass Jesus die Taufe eingesetzt habe, lässt sich nicht direct erweisen; denn Mt 28, 19 ist kein Herrnwort.”



Martineau in his “Seat of Authority” Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 515 writes thus: “The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations, betrayed itself by speaking in the trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself.”



Socinus (opera Irenopoli 1656 vol. I, 712 and II, 438) accepted the usual text as genuine, but sought to explain away its obvious meaning by means of tortuous and special pleading.



J. H. Scholten in his work: Die Taufformel (übersetzt von Max Gubalke, Gotha, 1885) wrote: “Die gegenseitige Vergleichung der Texte unserer drei ersten Evangelien und die kritische Untersuchung über ihr Alter führen somit zu dem Schlusse, dass dem Bericht über die Einsetzung der Taufe durch Jesus in dem nach Matthäus benannten kanonischen Evangelium ein relativ spates Datum zuerkannt werden muss.”



H. Holtzmann in an article on Baptism in the N. T. in the Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theol. 1879, p. 401, arrives at a similar conclusion.



36. The following questions therefore need to be discussed.



1. Is the Eusebian and Justin's reading of Mt 28:19 the original? [my answer is yes]

2. If so, was not the textus receptus produced about 130-140?

3. Was it not due to a reaction on the text of Matthew of liturgical, and, specially, of baptismal usage?

4. Did it not arise, like the text of the three witnesses [the Comma Johanneum, the adulteration also introduced by catholic hands in 1 John 5:7,8], in the African old Latin texts first of all, thence creep in to the Greek texts at Rome, and finally establish itself in the East during the Nicene epoch, in time to figure in all surviving Greek codices?



83.

The 'Fraternal Visitor - 1924 Pg. 148
Transcript from 'Christaqdelphian Monatshefte'
"Codex Vaticanus B would be the best of all existing MSS (ancient manuscripts) . . . if it were completely preserved, less damaged, less corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand (2000) 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."
Also from the 'Fraternal Visitor' From an Article 'The Question of the Trinity and Matthew 28:19. Pg 147 - 151
"The striking contrast and the illogical internal incoherence of the passage . . . lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interests of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage."



84.

The Good News Magazine November-December 2008

Volume 13

Number 6

The Good News (ISSN: 1086-9514) is published bimonthly by the United Church of God, an International Association

Article: 10 Things You Should Know About God

Number 6: God is a family

Page 6

Concerning the below documentation -

The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993)

Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan Editors

Page 782

Subject: Trinity

“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the [New Testament] canon”

The article goes on to say:

“ The word later here is a vital key in understanding why general Christian belief became burdened with the Trinity doctrine. It wasn’t until long after the Bible was written that theologians originally came up with the doctrine, and others added to and elaborated on it down through the centuries.”



85.

The "Great Commission" ADDITION of Matthew 28

by Brian Hoeck

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm)

http://members.aol.com/BRIHOECK7/Lie.html

or in:

http://www.dimensionsoftruth.org/great_commision.htm

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Mt 28:19,20 )

This "Great Commission" of Jesus Christ is an oft quoted proof-text of Trinitarians used to promote their belief in the three-in-one/triune God. This is based on the use of the single noun, "name" (as opposed to "names"), applied to three separate nouns---the Father, Son, and holy spirit---thus supposedly three beings with one name (or, according to some versions of triune theology, one being in three manifestations).

The 1917 Scofield note on this verse states: "The word is in the singular, the "name," not names. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the final name of the one triune God. It affirms: (1) That God is one."

Is this true? Is this Scriptural proof of a trinity? Let's dig down past the surface of this text and get a little deeper into a study of this matter.

Concerning these words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," noted Bible scholar, E.W. Bullinger, in his Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp.47, 48, states: "These words are contained in every Greek MS. [editor's note: MS. = manuscript] known, and are, therefore, on documentary evidence, beyond suspicion: but yet there is one great difficulty with regard to them.

"The difficulty is that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus."



Is this true? Let's examine the Scriptures to prove all things.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." [Baptism is to be performed in His name for the remission of sins because "...he had by himself purged our sins..." (Hebrews 1:3)].

Acts 8:16 "For as yet he [it] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 22:16 ". . . arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

1Cor 1:12-15 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."

[Editor’s note: Paul is implying here that the few baptisms that he performed there, without the use of water, but rather in spirit, as explained in Mk. 1:8 and in many other places, were all done in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified for us. Paul was referring to Jesus Christ---in whose name, he baptized spiritually the disciples.]

1Cor 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."



Some other Scriptures to consider include:

Rom 6:3 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? "

Gal 3:27 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

NOTE: In Matt 28:19, the word translated "in" in the phrase "in the name of..." is the Greek word "eis" which means "into." The above two scriptures show what we are truly to be baptized into---not the name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit ---but, into Christ and His death. "This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24)--'for they baptise not into the trinity, but into the death of Christ.'" (Encyclopedia Biblica, article: Baptism).

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom [which] the Father will send in my name . . . " [Note: How does one receive the holy spirit? In the name of Jesus!]

Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

[Note: This verse ties directly with Matt 28:19 (preaching the Gospel among all nations) and Acts 2:38 (repentance and remission of sins, which comes in the name of Jesus Christ), and as we see here, both are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ---not in the name of a "triune god".]

In the light of Scripture, we see baptism was never performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy ghost," but rather, in the name of Jesus Christ alone. Bullinger comments, "It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text."

"It is a question, therefore, whether we have here something beyond the reach of science, or the powers of ordinary Textual Criticism.

"As to the Greek MSS., there are none beyond the fourth Century [Of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus---BOTH CORRUPT. All other known Greek MSS. are from 5th Century and upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words." (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, p.48)

Why is it that no Greek MSS. exist from prior to the fourth century? It is due to the fact, that in 303 AD, Diocletian ordered all the sacred books to be burned. Church historian, Eusebius, wrote, "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place." (H.E. viii 2). This has left a large gap of three centuries (a time of great apostasy, which was already starting in Paul's and Jude's day - II Thes 2:7 & Jude 4) from which there are no known complete Greek MSS--from the first century in which Matthew recorded his Gospel account until the fourth and fifth centuries. This left plenty of time for perversion of the text to occur.

Fred Conybeare notes, "In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew." (Hibbert Journal, 1902, Fred C. Conybeare).

Is it possible that the destroyed manuscripts and these missing pages may have included a different reading of Matthew 28:19---a reading that would agree with the above listed Scriptures which show baptisms performed in Christ's name alone? Let us examine some of the writings of the so-called "early church fathers" who had access to older manuscripts. Please note that we are NOT turning to them for any theological doctrine. The "early church fathers" were pagan converts who did not truly convert, rather they "Christianized" their pagan doctrines by applying Christian names and ideas to them. The only real value of these writings lies in the fact that their authors had access to these missing manuscripts, and they quoted from them quite frequently---so much so, that almost the entire New Testament could be gathered from these sources alone. What text did their manuscripts contain? How did they quote Matt 28:19,20? We shall see.

Concerning Matthew 28:19, Conybeare states, "Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.' " (Hibbert Journal, F. Coneybeare). Eusebius' rendering here (...make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME...) ties directly with Luke 24:47 as listed above (repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS [Jesus'] NAME among all nations).

Conybeare states, "I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p.136):

"For he did not enjoin them to 'make disciples of all the nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to this appellation that the Apostle [Paul] says: 'God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.' It was right therefore that he [Jesus] should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles: 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in My name.' " (Hibbert Journal quoting Eusebius)

Conybeare continues, "It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice." (Hibbert Journal, p.105).

This has led scholars to suspect that he was persuaded to replace the original text.

"The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the Trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities (Hibbert Journal)."

Conybeare concludes: "It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of the words ' Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ' [in Matthew 28:19] " (Fred Conybeare).



At least two texts have been found that make no mention of these things:

"Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place." (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636)

"Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's Evan Bohan)



Let's now examine some writings of the other early "church fathers."

"The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century...dwells at length on 'the power in the name of Jesus invoked upon a man in baptism' " (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p 352, quoting De Rebaptismate 6.7).

In the Shepherd of Hermas (dated approximately 120 AD), it notes, "Before man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead, but when he has received the seal [through baptism], he lays aside mortality and receives life." It also states, "They are such as have heard the word and were willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (emphasis mine)

The Hibbert Journal notes that Origen quotes Matt.28:19 three times---ending the quote abruptly at "nations" each time and "that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'In my Name,' struck out." (Conybeare).

"In Justin Martyr, who wrote about AD 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text.

The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p 258: 'God hath not yet afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.' The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation of our text was that they ignored the formula 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.' But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes this difficulty: and Justin is seen to have had the same text ["in My name"] as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340." (Hibbert Journal F. Conybeare - emphasis mine).

"Justin quotes a saying of Christ, ...as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah ["Through the washing of repentance and knowledge of God, therefore, which was instituted for the sin of the people of God, as Isaiah says, we have believed, and we make known that the same baptism which he preached, and which is alone able to cleanse those who repent, is the water of life" (Justin's dialogue with Trypho)] and [so-called] Apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula.

This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional [trinitarian]text of Matthew 28:19." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

Concerning Aphraates, of Nisibis, Conybeare states, "There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates, ...who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites out text in a formal manner as follows: 'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.' The last words appear to be a gloss of the Eusebian reading 'in my name.' But in any case, they preclude the Textus Receptus with its injunction to baptise in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible." (Conybeare).

"Now Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day. If the Greek MS. there contained these words ["baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"], it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them."

"Professor Lake...and Mr. Conybeare have called attention to this fact, and shown that neither Justin Martyr (who died in 185 A.D.), nor Aphraates, of Nisibis (who flourished in Syria, 340 A.D.), knew anything of these words."

"It looks, therefore, as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa [possibly Alexandria, as we'll look at in a moment]; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS. at their disposal." (Bullinger, Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp.48,49)

Many reference works denote the skepticism of scholars concerning the accuracy of this verse. The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states: "It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view [trinitarian formula]. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism." It continues, "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one 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." It also comments on the verse as such: "If it be thought as many critics think, that no MS represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice [which was almost universally performed with the triune formula in the post-apostolic days]. It seems easier to believe that the traditional [trinitarian] text was brought about by the [trinitarian baptismal] influence working on the Eusebian ["in My name"] text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it." (Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics; article: Baptism). In fact, Sir William Whiston stated, "We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption made in any one of them [the Scriptures] by either the Eusebians or Arians." (Second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p 15). "Different from the post-apostolic and later Christian liturgical praxis, which is marked by the trinitarian formula of Mt 28:19 (see Did. VII. i. 3; Just. Apol. LXI 3, 11, 13), the primitive Church baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus,' (or 'Jesus Christ,' or 'the Lord Jesus'; see I Co 1:13,15; Ac 8:16, 19:5; Did. ix. 5). (Dictionary of the Bible, James Hasting, 1963, p.88, article: Baptism). "...the trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition..." (Harper's Bible Dictionary sixth edition, 1959, p.60 article: baptism). And in the eighth edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary, it states, "While the earliest formula of baptism seems to have been 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16, 10:48) the trinitarian formula obviously became the standard at a very early time." "Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as a later origin." (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Henry Austryn Wolfsan, p. 277).

"In the last half of the fourth century, the text 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called 'pneumatomachi' or 'fighters against the Holy Spirit', because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius [meaning, they lacked the triune reading of Mt 28:19]" (Hibbert Journal , F. Conybeare).

How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come? Fred Conybeare notes, "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited--but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows--'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' " (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287).

Alexandria was a hotbed of philosophical thought. Jewish philosopher, Philo, lived in Alexandria and taught his false doctrines of Gnosticism there. He spoke of "...one God, who in Himself is unity, yet appears in the likeness of a triad." He stated that a "holy and divine vision" of the Rulership is perceived "...in such a way, that a single vision appears to him [the one having the vision] as a triad, and a triad as unity..." And again, he states that "...the intellect perceives most clearly a unity although previously it learned to apprehend it under the similitude of a Trinity." (E.R. Goodenough Light, By Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, p.33). Philo clearly taught the trinity doctrine, as did fellow philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato - a doctrine that they all received from the Mystery teachings of Babylon. These Mystery teachings were the source of Theodotus' "Christianized" Gnostic trinitarian doctrine cited by Clement of Alexandria.

When did the corruption of the baptismal formula arise? According to Canney's Encyclopedia of Religion, the early church baptized in the name of Jesus until the second century. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11th ed., Vol 3, p365) agrees, stating that baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd century. And in Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p.389, it notes that baptism was always performed in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr.

It should now be clearly seen that all things are to be done in Jesus' name (Col 3:17), and that the words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," have been added to God's word to support the trinitarian doctrine brought in by the philosophers and other pagan "converts" to "Christianity". These words were not part of the original God-inspired text, much like the added words recorded in I John 5:7 (which are not in any Greek MS. prior to the 16th century).

"Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three witnesses, 1 John 5:7-8, shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity. [These added words of I Jn 5]...are now abandoned by all authorities except the Pope of Rome. By consequence, the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19." (Conybeare). And we have just seen that in light of Scripture and the early "church" writings, that it too, is unauthentic.

"In the course of my reading, I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it so weighty, that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three witnesses [I Jn 5:7,8]." (Hibbert Journal F. Conybeare).

So what is the true "Great Commission" of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Matt 28:19,20 should read as such:

"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in My name: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen."

** If anyone finds information PROVING OR DISPROVING the claims of this study, by all means, contact me with that information so that I may update, revise, correct, or even remove--if disproven, the information I present here. ** Thank you

Author’s Email: brihoeck7@aol.com



86.

The History of Christian Doctrines (1937, 1949)

Originally called: Reformed Dogmatics a companion volume to Systematic Theology by Dr. Louis Berkhof

Division: The Doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments

Section: The Doctrine of the Sacraments

Part 2.

BAPTISM

[a] Development of the Doctrine before the Reformation

Page 248

“The general opinion was that baptism ought in no case to be repeated; but… as to the validity of baptism administered by heretics. The Bishop of Rome (Pope Nicholas I) asserted that it could be regarded as valid (‘baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi, as in the Acts.’) The mode of baptism was not in dispute. While immersion was practiced.”



87.

The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
S. Driver, A. Plummer, C. Briggs
A Critical & Exegetical Commentary of St. Matthew
Third Edition, 1912, pages 307-308:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

"On the text, see Conybeare, Zeitsch. Fur die Neutest. Wissensch. 1901, 275 ff.; Hibbert Journal, October 1902; Lake, Inaugural Lecture; Riggenbach, Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl; Chase, Journal Theo. Stud. Vi. 481 ff. The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive, in view of the fact that all Greek MSS. and all extant VSS., contain the clause (S1 and S2 are unhappily wanting). The Eusebian quotation: "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name," can not be taken as decisive proof that the clause "Baptizing...Spirit" was lacking in copies known to Eusebius, because "in my name" may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever reason, the following clause. On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel, than to invent possible reasons which may have caused him so frequently to have paraphrased it. And if we once suppose his short form to have been current in MSS. of the Gospel, there is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the Gospel, and that in the later centuries the clause "baptizing...Spirit" supplanted the shorter "in my name." An insertion of this kind derived from liturgical use would very rapidly be adopted by copyists and translators. The Didache has ch. 7: "Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit": but the passage need not be dependent on our canonical Gospel, and the Didache elsewhere has a liturgical addition to the text of the Gospels in the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer. But Irenaeus and Tertullian already have the longer clause."

[This is one of my favorite quotes! The double talk is incredible!]



88.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)[39]

Volume 4

Page 2637

Under “Baptism”

“Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism in contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”

The above reference is also found at: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
"No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the Day of Pentecost are administered "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38), "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16), "into Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27)".



89.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious.

No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles."



90.

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962)[40]

Nashville; Abingdon Press

Volume 1

Page 351

“The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3, suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the three-fold name, but ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’.”



91.

The Jerusalem Bible (1966) (A scholarly Catholic Work)[41]

“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 liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus,”



92.

The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm)and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same."



93.

The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought

John Henry Newman writing on ‘The Development of Doctrine[42]’

Subject: The Roman Catholics

Page 208

“In 1833 John Keble preached his famous sermon on National Apostasy and this is traditionally seen as the launching of the Oxford Movement. The positive principles of the movement include the following beliefs:… the doctrines of baptismal regeneration (new birth through baptism).”

Page 209

“But Newman has to admit, as a good historian, that the Roman Catholic Church is not identical to the early church…”



94.

The Literal Translation of the Bible by Dr. Robert Young

In his Literal Translation of the Bible, Young places the triune name in Matt. 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.



95.

The New International Encyclopedia

Volume 22

Page 477

“The term ‘trinity’ was originated by Tertullian, Roman Catholic Church father.”



96.

The New Revised Standard Version

“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…”

The above reference is also found at: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm



97.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957)

Volume 1

Page 435[43]

“The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries.”



98.

Theology of the New Testament by R. Bultmann (1951)[44]

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.”



99.

The Origin And Significance Of New Testament Baptism by H. G. Marsh (1941)

Page 180

“Despite the manuscript attestation of the genuineness of Matthew 28:19, it is most unlikely that the triune formula presents the earliest from of the baptismal dedication. One may go further to assert that there is no evidence fro any definite from except what may be read into the expression ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ or similar words… It was natural that in the earliest from of Christian baptism words should be used which associated the ceremony with the name of Jesus. Yet we may be certain that the phrase ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ would never have been introduced it the Trinitarian formula had been recognized from the beginning. (In fact there is no record in the New Testament where it was ever used. It was formed… and given to the Church world… at the Nicean Council in the year 325 A.D.)



100.

The Outline of History © 1920, 1931, 1940 by H. G. Wells

Complete in one volume A De Luxe Edition Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., Garden City, N. Y.

Book VI

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM

Chapter 28

The Rise of Christianity and the Fall of the Western Empire

Section 2.

The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth

Page 530

“Now, it is a matter of fact that in the Gospels that body of theological assertion which constitutes doctrinal Christianity finds very qualified support. There is, as the reader may see for himself, no sustained and emphatic assertion in those books of several of the doctrines which Christian teachers of all denominations find generally necessary to salvation. The Gospel support for them is often allusive and indirect. It has to be hunted for and argued about. Except for a few disputed passages it is difficult to get any words actually ascribed to Jesus in which he explained the doctrine of the Atonement or urged any sacrifices or sacraments (that is to say, priestly offices) upon his followers. We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about he Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine.”



101.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993)

Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan Editors

Page 782

Subject: Trinity

“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the [New Testament] canon”



102.

Theological Wordbook of the Bible by R. R. Williams

Page 29

“The command to be baptized in Matt. 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ.”



103.

The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin.

Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form.



104.

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge[45]

Page 438

“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; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15 and Gal. 3:27), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matthew 28:10, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol 1:611… Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula… is strange; it was not the way of Jesus t make such formulas… the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed….”(page 435)



105.

The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm)

"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats."



106.

The Testimony by F. Whiteley

Footnotes to Articles: Baptism (5) August 1958

“Clerical conscience much trouble (See Comp Bible App. 185) that apostles and epistles never once employ ‘the Triune Name’ of Matt. 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing Trinity idea was being resisted by the Church in the 4th Century admits (E. G. Reake) ‘the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion’, but prior to oldest yet known Mss. (4th Cent.). Its sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7, is a proved interpolation[46]. Eusebius (A.D. 265 – 340) denounces the Triune from as spurious, Matthew’s actual writing having been ‘baptizing them in my name’.”

October 1959

Page 351

Article: Back to Babylon (4)

“There is the ‘triune’ baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but… we leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot fine one single instanced, in Acts or Epistles, of the words ever being used at any of the many baptisms recorded.”



107.

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries[47]

Volume 1

Page 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.”

The above reference is also found at: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

“… the true explanation why the early church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name is that the words of Matt. 28:19 were not meant as a baptismal formula. (Jesus) was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”





W
108.

Word Biblical Commentary by William Arnold III WmArold@gmail.com

Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original.

Some time ago I came across a web site titled ‘A Closer Look at Matthew 28:19’, claiming that the reading in Matthew 28:19 was probably not original. The claims were quite interesting, but very difficult to verify, as most of the sources given are not very accessible to the average person. However, I recently purchased Word Biblical Commentary on CD-ROM and was amazed at what it had to say about this passage, especially since it was written and published by Trinitarians. It is also one of the most respected commentary series, which could still be called evangelical (that’s with a small ‘e’) in print today. In fact, I recently examined three independent scholars’ (D. A. Carson,
Gorden Fee & David R. Bauer) recommendations for commentaries on every book in the New Testament (I intend to have an article up on this soon) and Word Biblical Commentary received more recommendations than any other. This is what it says in its comment on Matthews 28:19

“The threefold name (at most only an incipient Trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be preformed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf Did. 7.1) There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian from, the text read ‘make disciples in my name” (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation (see H. D. Green, cf Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of the ‘name of Jesus’ in early Christian preaching, the early practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular ‘in his name’ with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa. 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: ‘There is no evidence we have Jesus ipsissima verbal here’ (598). The narrative of Act notes the use of the name only of ‘Jesus Christ’ in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf Rom 6:3 and Gal. 3:27) or simply ‘the Lord Jesus’ (tou kuriou Iesou, Acts 8:16; 19:5)… Schaberg’s theory that the triadic formula goes back to the triad of Dan 7 (Ancient of Days, one like a son of man, and angles) remains an improbable speculation.[48]



109.

What Is Wrong With The Trinity? Posted by Aaron C. Wilson on March 19, 2009 at 10:10 pm in Apostolic Truth - Back to Apostolic Truth Discussions

(A Oneness response to the Trinitarian Doctrine)

Note: Some information in this section I moved and relocated for clarity. No information was changed, altered or delated just rearranged. - sda



The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians… that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualifications… New Testament exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic [church fathers] and concilian [church councils] development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the New Testament writers." 19“Trinity, Holy,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, 295-305.



The trinitarian Protestant theologian Emil Brunner has stated, "The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine and this indeed not by accident but of necessity. It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem…. The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only the product of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation, which is remote from the thought of the Bible."

According to the church historian Adolph Harnack, modalistic monarchianism was the most dangerous rival to trinitarianism in the period from A.D. 180 to A.D. 300. He concludes from passages in Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen that modalism was the official theory in Rome for almost a generation, and that it was at one time “embraced by the great majority of all Christians.”20 Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (London: Williams & Norgate, 1897), III, 51-54.



Heick, I, 46-48.

The Christian leaders following the apostles did not allude to a trinity, but rather they affirmed their belief in the monotheism of the Old Testament and accepted without question the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ.



Irenaeus, a prominent Christian leader who died around A.D. 200, had an intensely Christocentric theology and a firm belief that Jesus was God manifested in flesh. He held that the Logos which became incarnate in Jesus Christ was the mind of God, and was

the Father Himself. 2 Kenneth Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 143.



44Roland Bainton, Early Christianity (Princeton, N.J.):

Lutheran seminary professors Otto Heick and E. H. Klotsche, Yale University professor of church history Roland Bainton, university professor John Noss, noted philosopher-historian Will Durant, and the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

In Chapter 10 - ONENESS BELIEVERS IN CHURCH HISTORY, we noted that the early post-apostolic fathers (90 - 140 A.D.) did not embrace the idea of a trinity. On the contrary, they emphasized Old Testament monotheism, the deity of Christ, and the humanity of Christ. The Greek apologists (130 - 180 A.D.) also emphasized the oneness of God. However, some of them moved towards trinitarianism.

This trend toward trinitarianism began by making the Logos (the Word of John 1) a separate person. Following a thought in Greek philosophy, particularly in the teachings of Philo, some of the Greek apologists began to view the Logos as a separate person from the Father. This was not trinitarianism, however, but a form of binitarianism, and one that subordinated the Logos to the Father. To them the Father alone was the real God and the Logos was a created divine being of second rank. Eventually, the Logos became equated with the Son. Apparently, the triune baptismal formula became a practice among some Christian churches, although the few early references to it may be either recitations of Matthew 28:19 or interpolations added by later copyists. Moreover, during this time, an apologist named Theophilus used the word triad (triados) to describe God. However; he probably did not use it to signify a trinity of persons but rather a triad of God's activities.

Irenaeus (died c. 200) is often considered the first true theologian of this time. He emphasized the manifestation of God in Christ for the sake of redemption. Some scholars have characterized Irenaeus' beliefs as "economic trinitarianism." By this they mean he did not believe in an eternal trinity or a trinity of essence but only a trinity that is temporary in nature - probably a trinity of God's activity or operations only. Irenaeus, who did not use the Greek Logos doctrine, identified the Logos with the Father. His theology had three key characteristics: a strong biblical emphasis, a reverence for apostolic tradition, and a strong Christocentric emphasis. It seems he was not a true trinitarian but at most a transitional figure.

In summary, in the first century after the apostles, the doctrine of the trinity had not even developed. However, in some circles a form of subordinationistic binitarianism emerged based on Greek philosophical ideas, a doctrine denounced in the first chapter of John's Gospel. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of trinitarianism at this time in church history: "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the second century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead… In the last analysis, the second century theological achievement was limited… A trinitarian solution was still in the future."



" A Baptist scholar has said, "A whole group of exegetes and critics have recognized that the opening declaration of Mt. 28:18 demands a Christological statement to follow it: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me' leads us to expect as a consequence, 'Go and make disciples unto Me among all the nations, baptizing them in My name, teaching them to observe all I commanded you.'"



The explanation of Matthew 28:19 in The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries is very interesting in this regard: "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 either the evangelist's words put into His mouth, or a later liturgical addition… It may well be that the true explanation why the early Church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name, is that the words of xxviii. 19 were not originally meant by our Lord as a baptismal formula.



William Phillips Hall, President of the American Tract Society of New York, undertook a study of the name of God. In 1929 he published a booklet entitled Remarkable Biblical Discovery or "The Name of God" According to the Scriptures. His conclusion: The Name of the Lord Jesus Christ is the full revelation of God and the apostles correctly understood and obeyed Matthew 28:19 by invoking this Name. Furthermore, the words of Matthew 25:19 "were never used in baptism by the original apostles, or by the Church during the early days of its existence" and "all baptisms of those early days were commanded to be, or stated to have been, performed in, or with the invocation of, the Name of Lord Jesus Christ."



In recent years, a prominent independent pastor named James Beall wrote a book on baptism called Rise to Newness of Life, which advocates baptism in Jesus' name while retaining trinitarian doctrine. See Chapter 10 - The Witness in Church History: Baptism for a list of other trinitarians today who baptize in Jesus' name. As already noted, many trinitarian scholars such as W. E. Vine, Matthew Henry, and James Buswell have recognized the significance of the singular in Matthew 28:19 although apparently not associating it with baptism in the name of Jesus.



According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia, historians of dogma and systematic theologians recognize “that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. . . . From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th century invention. In a sense, this is true but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not —263— fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma.” 21“Trinity, Holy,” pp. 295-305.



The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of trinitarianism at this time in church history: “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the second century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. . . . In —267— the last analysis, the second century theological achievement was limited . . . A trinitarian solution was still in the future.”31“Trinity, Holy,” pp. 295-305.



Above section 109 also has these references:

Baptism (Early Christian), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), p. 385.

Klotsche, E.H., The History of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 18.

“Unitarianism,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, XII, 520.

“Monarchianism,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,VIII, 780.





110

More information in regards to baptism in Jesus name against Matthew 28:19:

From http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

Catholic Church time line:

Listed under 250’s A.D.

*256 Pope St. Stephen I upholds the baptisms administered by heretics.



Listed under 260’s A. D.

*c. 260 Birth of Eusebius of Caesarea, Church Father, bishop and "Father of Church history." his Church history is an important source of information about the Early Church. He also wrote the Life of Constantine.



Listed under 320’s A.D.

*325 The Council of Nicea. Presided by Emperor Constantine and Hosius of Cordoba. Pope St. Sylvester I sends papal legates, being too old to make the journery from Rome. Many of the bishops in attendance had been physically injured in the persecutions of previous decades. The Council defines trinitarian belief in God. The Father and God the Son are declared of the same substance against the teachings of Arius. Emperor Constantine considers heresy to be a form of rebellion, and banishes Arian bishops to Illyria.



Listed under 330 A. D.

*331 Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian, schemes to have a local synod depose the orthodox bishop Eustathius of Antioch. Constantine recognizes the authority of the synod and expels Eustathius. His successor, Paulinus of Tyre dies a few months later, and, for the first time in history, a secular ruler interferes in the choice of a bishop. Constantine recommends the Arian Euphronios, who was elected.

*335 By this time Eusebius of Nicomedia succeeds in convincing the emperor of his orthodoxy by proposing at the Council of Jerusalem an ambiguous formula of faith to which both Arians and Catholics can adhere.



Listed under 340’s A. D.

*c. 340-350 The Arian bishop Ulfilas makes a corrupt translation of the Bible into the Gothic language and converts the Goths. From then on, barbarian tribes that converted to Christianity were Arian, until the conversion of the Franks in the 6th century.



*341 Death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of Constantinople. He schemed to depose Catholic bishops throughout the empire and replace them with Arians. He made Arians appear orthodox through ambiguous formulas of faith.



Miscellaneous interesting information:

*1227 AD Bible divided into chapters by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury but not by verses, which were only introduced by Robert Estienne in 1545.

*1551 AD Bible divided into verses by Robert Stephens 1551



111

Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 33B, Matthew 14-28

Donald A. Hagner, 1975, page887-888:

(http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm) and (http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm) also found in: (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm)

"The disciples are further told to "baptize" (the second of the participles functioning as supplementary imperatives) new disciples. The command to baptize comes as somewhat of a surprise since baptism is referred to earlier only in chap. 3 (and 21:25) where only John's baptism is described (among the Gospels only in John 3:22; 4:1-2 do we read of Jesus' or his disciples' baptizing others). Matthew tells us nothing concerning his view of Christian baptism. Only Matthew records this command of Jesus, but the practice of the early church suggest its historicity. (cf. Acts 2;38, 41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; etc.). The threefold name (at most only an incipient Trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf. Did. 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read "make disciples in my name" (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation (see H. B. Green; cf. Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986) 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa. 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: "There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16; 19:5)."



112.

Worship in the Early Church (1964) by Ralph P. Martin[49]

Second Edition 1974

First American printing July 1975

Reprinted August 1976

Chapter 5

‘The Pattern of Sound Words’ Early Creeds and Confessions of Faith

Page 60

“We gleam from the record in Acts of the Apostles that conversion and baptism were regarded as the inside and outside of the same experience.”

Page 61

“Ephesians 5 verse 25-26 may be mentioned here, following C. A. Anderson Scott’s[50] translation of the Pauline words:

Eph. 5:25-26 ‘Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her, that he might consecrate her after cleansing in the water-bath (of baptism) together with the Formula’: and by the formula (literally ‘saying’) Paul evidently means the public acknowledgment (verbally calling on the name of Jesus Christ out loud) by the person(s) to be baptized of Jesus as Lord.”









As you can see I’ve collected 112 (- my search continues -) documented historical records that proclaim that the original wording of Matthew 28:19 did not include the words ‘the name of the Father and of The Son and of the Holy Ghost’ but simply ‘in my name’ (Jesus speaking here). So whose name are we to be baptized in? Jesus Christ of course for there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). For a complete and thorough Bible Study of how actual baptism was done by the Apostles in the book of Acts see: A Study In Acts - How did the original Apostles baptise? © 1994, 2005, 2008 by Steven D. Ashe and Study The Word Publications®

Acts 4:12 (KJV)
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.





That’s the end of my alphabetical list of references so now I would like to demonstrate an excellent resource to govern how to determine Biblical truth when there seems to be conflicting verses dealing with the same subject such as Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. And it is called: INTERNAL EVIDENCE I will share with you eleven test to determine what is correct in God’s Word and in using these we can feel very confident in reading the Bible for Salvation and guidance and in understanding the true Godhead and all other doctrines of God and His Word.

In legal practice, where copies of the same lost document vary, resource is had to what is called ‘Internal Evidence’, that is, a comparison with the rest of the text of document that is not in dispute, in order to ascertain which of the variant readings is the more likely. This method is useful in ascertaining the original text of Scripture where two or more readings obtrude. So, having found that in the first three centuries there existed copies of Matthew which at 28:19 did not include the triune-name, we will use ‘Internal Evidence’ to decide what is the true reading.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE: Eleven Test to find Biblical truth within Scriptures.

FIRST TEST = is that of CONTEXT

If we read as the whole context it fits together and the tenor of the instruction is complete:

“All power is given unto ME… go therefore… baptizing in MY name, teaching them… whatsoever I have commanded… I am with you…”

Notice ALL is in the SINGLE tense)



SECOND TEST = is that of FREQUENCY

How consistence, constant and frequent are the word, thoughts, etc used.

Is the phrase ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ used elsewhere in Scripture?

- Not once!

Did Jesus use the phrase ‘in my name’ on other occasions?

- Yes!

Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5 Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17 Luke 9:48; 21:8 John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26



THIRD TEST = is that of ARGUMENT

Is any argument in Scripture based on the fact of the threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name?

- None whatever!

Is any argument in Scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus?

- Yes!

This argument in 1 Corinthians 1:13:

Is Christ divided?

Was Paul crucified for you?

Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

From this argument it will appear that believers ought to be baptized in the name of the One who was crucified for them. It is the Lord Himself who was crucified, and in His name therefore, believers must be baptized in water.

Dr. Thomas says in ‘Revealed Mystery, Article XLIV’ “There is but one way for a believer of ‘the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus the Christ’ to put Him on, or to be invested with Him name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose.”

Many of the writers and editors who address this problem wrapped up the difficulty with words, phrases, ideas, exposition and exhortation (al of which are good in their proper place), this wrapping was to hide away the difficulty and side step the issue and/or confuse the reader. Dr Thomas was one that was a glowing exception to this general rule.

‘There is none other name under heaven (no other name or names or titles) given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12’

“As for its significance: baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ – it is the means of the believer’s identification with the Lore’s death.”

From God’s Way

Page 190

Romans 6:3-5

‘Now the Father did not die, nor yet the Holy Spirit.’ Buried with Him (not with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)’

Robert Roberts used this argument:

“According to triune-immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connection link – the door of entrance – the ‘new and living way’. And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that ‘there is none other name (that the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’” Acts 4:12 From ‘The True Nature of Baptism’ Page 13

‘This is the same argument as Paul used in 1 Cor. 1:13 and this argument is equally effective against the use of the triune name.

Were ye baptized in the name of Paul, or the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that displaces Christ from His position as the ‘connecting link’, as the ONLY name for salvation?”

“This is the argument, and confirms the genuine text of Matt. 28:19 to contain the phrase ‘in my name.”



FOURTH TEST – is that of ANALOGY

(Synonyms: Affinity, Likeness, Analogy, Similarity, Kinship, Resemblance)

Analogy: 1. Inference that if 2 or more things agree in some respects they will probably agree in (all) others.

2. A likeness in one or more ways between things otherwise unlike.

3. Sharing of many features and qualities of being similar ‘ALL Scriptures’.

Is there anything in Scripture analogous to baptism in the Triune-name?

- No!

Is there anything analogous to baptism in the name of Jesus?

- Yes!

The waiting disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. John 14:26. There is reason for this. The Holy Ghost is the Promise (Acts 2:38-39) and only those who were in the corporate body of Christ, the Ecclesia which is His Body – only those could receive the Gift, and only because they wee in that one Body. The Lord Jesus Christ is the ‘connection link’ both for baptism in water and for baptism in Spirit. John 3:5.



FIFTH TEST = is that of CONSEQUENCE

In being baptized, do we put on the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if we don’t use that name?

- No!

Do we put on the name of JESUS if we use it in baptism?

- Yes!

Dr. Thomas wrote in Revealed Mystery Article XLIII

“Believers of the Gospel Jesus preached are –justified by faith through His name; that is, their Abrahamic faith and disposition are counted to them for repentance and the remission of sins, in the act of putting on the name of Jesus, the Christ.”

Note by sda – Believers bear the name of JESUS now by its use at their baptism. To not use the actually name but the titles the one being baptized is not ‘putting on the name of Christ’, not adopted into the family of God’ and has not had their sins removed for without the name spoken over them in baptism all that happened was they got wet and that’s all sad to say. So that is why in Matthew 7:21-23 says Jesus will look at them and say ‘Depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I never knew you’ and as He further explains in Matthew 7:24-27 the reason being no matter how well their house was built, no matter how high quality of material they used, the house built on sand (foundation of Father, Son and Holy Ghost) can’t sustain the weight in final judgment. Only the foundation of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ the ROCK will withstand the storms of life and judgment.



SIXTH TEST = is that of PRACTICE

Did the disciples afterwards baptize in the Threefold name?

- Never!

Did they baptize in the name of Jesus?

- Always!

Acts 2:38

8:16

10:48

19:5



SEVENTH TEXT = is that of SIMILARITY OF ACTION

Baptism is a symbolic rite; another rite of the Ecclesia (Greek word meaning ‘the called out ones sometimes called the Church or body of Christ) is that of Breaking of Bread. The latter is the Communion of those who have experienced the former: and for none else. This Memorial is the Lord’s Supper, not that of a Trinity.

(My body, My blood, My name)

Matthew 26:26-28

Luke 22:19-20

John 6:51-58



EIGHT TEST = is that of SIGNIFICANCE

One significance involved is that of the forgiveness of sins. John did “preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”. Jesus had no sins to be remitted. Neither had He whereof to repent.

Old Testament – Law:

When a man brought his lamb to the priest, he laid his hands upon the lamb, and the lamb was slain, and so the man received a remission of his sin (they were pushed back a year). Without the laying on of hands the sin could not have been transferred to the lamb nor pushed back.

This is the significance in the baptism of Jesus by John. When we were baptized (as when John’s disciples were baptized), our sins were loosed, remitted, washed away, and we arose sinless. The Lord entered the water of baptism to take upon Himself those very sins. He entered sinless and emerged bearing the sins of the world.

How Do We Know This?

It was revealed to John, who exclaimed – “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world?” John 1:29

It was JESUS alone (and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who was baptized, and became the Lamb of God to take away sins.

So that the significance here outlined requires the phrase in Matthew 28:19 to be “in my name.”

Note by sda – When Jesus came to be baptized of John the Baptist, John said that he (John) needed to be baptized of Jesus. In reply to this Jesus said “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.”

Matthew 3:11-15

Mark 1:4, 8-9

Luke 3:16, 21

John 1:26, 29, 31, 33 and 36

So, what did Jesus mean by this statement:

John was the last of the Old Testament prophets and

Jesus was the first of the New Testament prophets.

John preached ‘repentance and water baptism’ and

Jesus preached being baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So from this we can see that to fulfill all righteousness in our lives we must do as Jesus did and instructed. And that is to ‘Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the infilling of the gift of the Holy Ghost. This, as Christ was our example, is the only way to ‘fulfill all righteousness.”

Matthew 3:11

Luke 3:16

John 1:26-36

Acts 1:5; 11:16; 19:4-5



NINTH TEST = is that of PARALLEL ACCOUNTS

Now it happens that Matthew was not alone in recording the words of Christ before His Ascension.

Let us compare the parallel accounts of Luke 24:46-47 and Mark 16:15-18

Luke 24:46-47 (KJV)
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. This passage therefore restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19 – ‘in my name’.

Also lets look at:
Mark 16:15-18 (KJV)
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Again we see that the Scriptures do not include a triune name but rather the phrase - - ‘in my name.’



TENTH TEST = is that of a COMPLEMENTARY CITATION

There is a striking resemblance between Matthew 28:19 and Romans 1:4-5; the former contains the Commission of Christ to His Disciples/Apostles, while the latter is Paul’s understanding and acceptance of his own Commission from Christ as an Apostle.

Matthew 28:19 Romans 1:4-5

All POWER is given unto me The Son of God with POWER

Go ye Received… Apostleship[51]

Teaching them to observe For obedience to the faith

All nations All nations, vs. 5 – “His name”

(not a triune name or titles)



ELEVENTH TEST = is that of a PRINCIPLE

It is written –

“WHATSOEVER ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Colossian 3:17

Now here is a principle laid down, and the comprehensive word ‘whatsoever’ certainly includes baptism, which is a rite involving both sword and deed.

Now of the alternative reading of Mathew 28:19, the threefold name/titles is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter phrase ‘in my name’ is.

That this is correct is proved by other Scriptures, It was Paul who enunciated the ‘Principle’. Did it, in his opinion, include baptism? Acts 19:3-5 supplies the answer. The baptism of John, like the baptism of Jesus (then and now), was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4 and Acts 2:38). And John preached also the coming of the Messiah who should baptize with the Holy Spirit. The difference between the baptism of John and baptism after Pentecost is that the latter was always in the name of JESUS.

NO OTHER DIFFERENCE IS SHOWN IN SCRIPTURE
Now it is written of the disciples at Ephesus that although they had been baptized unto John’s baptism, they were later baptized again, in the presence of Paul, but this time ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ Acts 19:3-5

This last test, therefore, provides a doubly strong proof of the authenticity of the phrase ‘in my name’ in Matthew 28:19. Paul established the ‘PRINCIPLE’ in Colossian 3:37 and he applied it, or I should say, he put it into practice in Acts 19:3-5



Now let me (Steven D. Ashe aka – sda) explain something important here before I add my last section.

The addition of the extra wording in Matthew 28:19 ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ is called in Bible Scholars and Textual Criticism circles ‘Interpolations’.

The actual word ‘Interpolation’ means:

1. To change (as in text) by inserting new or foreign matter

2. To insert (as words) into a text or into a conversation

So by definition those ‘interpolation’ may or may not be incorrect, harmful, damaging or changing the thought, concept, ideal or doctrine of the original writing or conversation.



Now with that in mind let me calm your worried and fears and reaffirm to you that the Bible as we have it today is very reliable. The vast majority of manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript and by using the 11 very thorough ‘INTERNAL EVIDENCE’ tests I gave above. The result is a ‘certain Word from God’.



So here is my last section for your reading and secure knowledge concerning the reliability of our modern Bible (at least the Authorized King James Version).



The following is from: The King James Version Debate – A Pleas For Realism (1979)

By D. A. Carson

Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, he holds the Ph.D. degree from Cambridge University, He also is a graduate of McGill University and Central Baptist Seminary (Toronto).

Note from sda – I have taken the liberty to rearrange some of the pages of this material so as to be better understood within the framework of this section. No data or information was changed or altered in any manner.

Chapter 1

The Early Circulation Of The New Testament

Page 17-18

“The Greek manuscripts are regularly classified as follows:

1. Uncials

2. Cursive Scripts

3. Minuscule

4. Papyri

5. Lectionaries”



“There are other sources of information; but these are the most important. In no instance do we possess the original autograph (original documents written by the original writer or author); and I suspect it is just as well, for undoubtedly we would make an idol out of it.”

“What we do possess is something over:

2,100 Lectionary Manuscripts, more than

2,300 Minuscules, just over

260 Uncials, and about

80 Papyri

This is over 5,000 in number.

Note by sda – This count was in 1979 and I know of many more discovered since then so the count grows and continues.

“To keep things in perspective, it is important to remember that the vast majority of these 5,000+ manuscripts are fragmentary, preserving a few verses or a few books. Only about 50 of theses 5,000+ contain the entire New Testament, and only one of theses 50 is an Uncial (VIX; ?, Codex Sinaiticus). Most of the manuscripts, however, contain the four Gospels”

“In comparison with other books written in antiquity, the New Testament is vastly better attested by surviving records than even the best of the alternatives.

The New Testament, as I have said, is preserved in over 5,000+ Greek Manuscripts and 8,000+ manuscripts of versions. Yet despite this abundant supply of manuscripts evidence, this providential wealth of material sufficient to embarrass the most industrious textual critic, it is a stark fact that no two manuscripts agree in every detail.”

Page 26

“(No two manuscripts in any one textual tradition are precisely identical)”

Page 25

“The aim of the textual critic is to ascertain, as precisely as possible, what reading of any particular passage is closest to the original”.

Page 25

“Before taking the discussion further, I should pause and set at rest the troubled concern of anyone who, on the basis of what they just read (may have).

There is no need for such rigorous pessimism. The vast majority of manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript.”

Note from sda – Also using the ‘INTERNAL EVIDENCE’ testing method any, and all, ‘errors or interpolations’ can be corrected and understood as to the original meaning and message of the Word of God. So in closing let me affirm that the Bible as we have it today (I speak of course of the King James Version primarily) is 100% safe and trustworthy. And above all else I still consider it to be The Word Of God without apology.



Today’s handbook For Solving Bible Difficulties (1990) by David E. O’Brien

Instructor of Old Testament History at St. Paul Bible College and Bible classes at Bethany Fellowship.

Page 21

“We all bring to our reading the doctrines we’ve been taught, assumptions we’ve made, and pet ideas we’ve nurtured. As a result, we often see what we expect to find whether it’s there on not”

Part 1: The Past Imperfectly

Section: Principle Index

Pages 442 – 446

Note by sda – I have selected only those Principles that best fit our current discussion concerning Biblical accuracy and various interpolations.

Principle #

The more ancient manuscripts we have, the more certainty we have about the true nature of the text.
The more ancient the text is, the closer it is to the original; and the closer it is to the original, the more accurate it is likely to be.[52]
The quality of the text is as important as the age of the text.
The more we know about the world in which the Bible was written, the better we understand the Bible itself.
The most straightforward interpretation of a passage is probably the best
interpretation. (See point # 14)

14. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

16. Don’t build doctrines based on difficult passages.

17. Let clear teachings illuminate unclear passages.

21. Don’t use a difficult passage to explain another difficult passage.

33. Whenever a troublesome passage forces us to choose an interpretation that contradicts other Scripture, the problem probably lies with our interpretation, not in the Scriptures or the Bible.

34. Do not use historical narrative to develop doctrines.

37. Don’t bend and twist the meaning of the Biblical text to avoid an unpleasant conclusion.

38. Don’t formulate doctrine on the basis of problem passages.



The Case Of Christ (1998) by Lee Strobel

Part 1: Examining the Record

Chapter 1. The Eyewitness Evidence

Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted with Dr. Craig Blomberg

Note by sda - First a little history of Dr. Craig Blomberg from Page 21 and 22

“Craig Blomberg is widely considered to be one of the country’s foremost authorities on the biographies of Jesus, which are called the four gospels. He received his doctorate in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, later serving as a senior research fellow at Tyndale House at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of an elite group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. For the last dozen years (as of 1998) he has been a professor of New Testament at the highly respected Denver Seminary.

Blomberg’s books include Jesus and the Gospels; Interpreting the Parables; How Wide the Divide?; and commentaries on the gospel of Matthew and 1 Corinthians. He also helped edit volume six of Gospel Perspectives, which deals at length with the miracles of Jesus, and he coauthored Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. He contributed chapters on the historicity of the gospels to the book Reasonable Faith and the award-winning Jesus under Fire. His memberships include the Society for the Study of the New Testament, Society of Biblical Literature, and the Institute for Biblical Research.

Blomberg speaks with the precision of a mathematician (yes, he taught mathematics too, earlier in his career), carefully measuring each word out of an apparent reluctance to tread even one nuance beyond where the evidence warrants.”

Under section: THE GOSPELS THEOLOGICAL AGENDA

Page 33

“The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles, is Mark in the 70’s, Matthew and Luke in the 80’s, John in the 90’s. But listen: that’s still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around.”

In response to this question: “You indicated that you believe they wee written sooner than the dates you mentioned.” Dr. Blomberg answered: “Yes, sooner. And we can support that by looking at the book of Acts, which was written by Luke. Acts ends apparently unfinished – Paul is a central figure of the book, and he’s under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don’t find out from Acts, probably because the book was written before Paul was put to death. That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know that first part – the gospel of Luke - must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier.

If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50’s. If Jesus was put to death in A.D. 30 or 33, we’re talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so.”

Historically speaking, especially compared with Alexander the Great, that’s like a news flash!”[53]



A word about 1 John 5:6-8

Liberty Bible Commentary of the New Testament (1978)

Jerry Falwell D.D., D.Litt Executive Editor

Edward E Hindson, Th.D., D. Min.

Woodrow Michael Kroll, Th.D.

General Editors

Book of 1 John

Page 727

Section: A. Assurance of Victory 1 John 5:1-8

6-8. …there are three that bear record.

“The rest of verse 7 and the first nine words of verse 8 are not original, and are not to be considered as part of the Word of God (refer to the marginal notes in any reference Bible). John’s three witnesses then are: ‘the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. ‘Agree in one’ is an idiom, which is properly translated, simply, ‘agree’. Only two or three witnesses were needed to establish the truth of a fact (Deut. 19:15; John 8:17).”



One last word about our wonderful Bible.

From the book ‘DOCTRINES of the BIBLE’ ã1993 Word Aflame Press

Editors J. L. Hall and David K. Bernard

Section: THE BIBLE

Page 49 –50

Under ‘G’: Inerrancy and Infallibility

“Inerrancy means that the original autographs (manuscripts) of the Bible were without error. Infallibility means without error in a larger sense; the concepts and accounts are correct. Neither word denies that there are variations and mistakes in various copies made since the originals.

The Scripture is both inerrant and infallible in its original writings. (See Psalm 119:142, 151; John 17:17.) God gave people His holy Word, and they wrote it down as God inspired them. Although no originals now exist, through the many manuscripts – actually thousands – the originals are as visible as if they were before our very eyes. God’s truth endures t o all generations, so we can have confidence that He has placed His hand of preservation upon His Word. (See Psalm 100:5; 117:2) Sir Fredrick Kenyon, a leading authority of textual authenticity said:

It cannot be to strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writings of the church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one of other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.[54]

Page 72

Under ‘C’: Accuracy of our Old Testament

“The reverence for the ‘holy writings’ by the ancients is well known, and the dedication of the copyists resulted in a Hebrew text today that compares will with the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament.

Until recently we possessed no copies of the Hebrew text earlier than the ninth century A.D., and this we were limited in our ability to compare texts and prove conclusively the accuracy of our Old Testament.

Then, beginning in 1947, discoveries near Qumran in certain caves in the Judean wilderness provided the greatest find of Bible manuscripts in recent times. These caves yielded hundreds of manuscripts of which about 170 are Biblical. The manuscripts vary in dates. Some are said to be as old as the third century B.C. and compare quite well with our Old Testament today. They span a time period of about three hundred years.

There are two ‘main strands of Biblical recension in the Qumran scrolls.’[55] One recension, or edition, is known as the Massoretic Text, which is the text of the King James Version. The other type of text was in circulation in Egypt during the second and third centuries B.C. and correlates with the Septuagint.

The important thing about these scrolls is that they substantiate our Bible text, which, until their discovery, had no early witness. They demonstrate the accuracy of our Old Testament.”

Page73

Under ‘D’ Accuracy of our New Testament

“The advantage of the New Testament textual study is comparison with that of the Old Testament is the number of existing manuscripts and older versions found in different parts of the world. The similarities of some and the differences between others allow textual scholars to trace origins and categorize them into families. By comparisons of both internal and external evidences, it is possible to ascertain the original text.

History is not without its culprits, however. Some of them made alterations under the cloak of ‘higher criticism,’ and some miscopied and added exegetical notes because of their own views. Amazingly, God has guided and preserved His Word in such a way that with every passing year new evidence is found to authenticate the existing New Testament.

Another miraculous factor is the dating of our earliest manuscripts so near to the time of the originals. This is not true of any other ancient extra biblical literature. The closes one can come to the originals of most classical Greek works is many hundreds of years.

Concerning the relatively short period of time from the writers of the New Testament to the earliest manuscripts we have in our possession today, scholars say that the time is so short as to be negligible. Because of such a minimal time lapse we can be confident of the authenticity and general integrity of the Bible.

It is with confidence that the most critical commentators recognize that the reproduction of the true Scripture is possible. There is an awe among them because of the great collection of New Testament texts so near to the dates of the originals.”







My Personal Statements Of ‘Faith’ And ‘My Belief Concerning The Godhead’

By Steven D. Ashe

Study The Word Apostolic Church®

studythewordpublications@hotmail.com



My Personal Statement Of Faith©
First and foremost I make no claim to, or association with, any formal religion, established denomination or religious sect. Nor do I bind myself to any form of man-made religion or religious ideology. I use only the Word Of God as my ‘Faith Belief Platform’ and adhere solely to the Bible as my foundation, guide and spiritual road map. If any religion or denomination, etc. is similar in one or more areas that is purely coincidental howbeit I do worship with, and fellowship, any and all who are of the truth.

And so my Statement of Faith is as follows:

I am Apostolic in Doctrine

Acts 2:38-47

Pentecostal in Experience

Acts 2:1-4

And

Oneness in Belief

Deuteronomy 6:4; Zechariah 14:9; Matthew 1:23; John 1:1, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9-10



My Personal Statement Of The Godhead©
Let me first say that I do believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost and I have no problem using those terms or titles at various times in teaching, preaching, praying, writing, or any other type of communications. I do believe these 3 terms, or better yet, ‘titles’ are expressions of the One God, not in ‘persons’, but in modes or manifestations of His working, presence and involvement with mankind past, present and future.

There is only one God who is called by the title ‘Father’ and only one body/flesh of God called by the title ‘Son’ and only one indwelling Spirit of God called by the titles Comforter/Holy Ghost/Spirit. How-be-it there are many titles and various expressions of what God is called in the Bible there is only one family name that is above every other name or title in Heaven, on earth and under the earth that has been given to us to be called by, saved by and live by and it is that one name that we know as the ‘I am he’ and that is the name Jesus Christ.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thank you for your love of truth and in following God's word


John 17:17 (KJV)
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.



My final statement:

The above material was published by 'Study The Word Publications® and is copyrighted by Steven D. Ashe and Study The Word Publications®. Any public information, documentation or records are open to be used as such but any original writings, commentary, editorial or information written by me (Steven D. Ashe) is held under copyright rules and regulations as well as the composition, form, layout, structure and style of this study/research document. This document may not be copied, duplicated, or in any way, form, or matter replicated, reproduced, Xerox-copied or photocopied except for the purposes of study and research. Also it may be used for 'winning souls', 'teaching' and 'establishing saints' so they can be 'rooted and grounded in the faith'.

All rights reserved.

In Christ's Service

Steven D. Ashe

Study The Word Ministries®

Abishai Ministries®

Study The Word Apostolic Church®

Study The Word Publications®

studythewordpublications@hotmail.com

www.geocities.com/elder_ashe/One1.html

http://acts238elderashe.spaces.live.com





For your free personal copy of the ‘Bible Studies and Research Papers Catalog’ or for information about Abishai Ministries’, ‘Study The Word Ministries’ or to inquire about our ‘Biblical Research Seminars’, Teaching Schedules, Personal Appearances, Book Signings, Engagement Locations / dates and times or to request information on how to schedule a colloquium, seminar or meeting for your assembly, church, congregation, group or organization to be conducted in your area please send your request via e-mail to: studythewordpublications@hotmail.com





Study The Word Ministries® (STWM)- A Biblical Research and Teaching Ministry.



Abishai Ministries® a division of STWM - An Apostolic Christian Counseling and Recovery Ministry for tired, over worked, stressed out and battle wearily saints of God.



Pastor of:

Study The Word Apostolic Church® - An Internet fellowship, training center and focus group for the study of the written Word.



E-mail: studythewordministries@hotmail.com


Abishai Ministries® and Study The Word Ministries® are non-profit ministries and are solely supported by donations, contributions, sales of printed materials and proceeds from public appearances and seminars.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] In Acts 4:12 Peter uses the word "must" which is the Greek preposition dei. In this passage it literally means, "it is necessary."(Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved) "Must" here is an emphatic word indicating compelling necessity and it is joined with "name" which is part of the "must." Not only is there only one-way to get salvation, e.g. through Jesus Christ, but there is only one saving name in baptism—Jesus Christ.

[2] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[3] From Merriam-Webster Speaking Dictionary & Thesaurus: Apocryphal means: 1. Not canonical: spurious – not genuine 2. Having existence only in fiction 3. False. From The Ashe Word Etymology Dictionaryã2002: Non- or Un-inspired.

[4] Water Baptism according to the Bible and Historical Reference at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/baptism.htm

[5] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[6] The Outline Of History by H. G. Wells ã 1920, 1931, 1940 Book VI Chapter 28 The Rise Of Christianity And The Fall Of The Western Empire Section 8. Constantine the Great Page 553 “ A very important thing for us to note is the role played by the emperor in the fixation of Christianity. Not only was the council of Nicea assembled by Constantine the Great, but all the great councils, the two at Constantinople (381 and 553), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), were called together by the imperial power. And it is very manifest that in much of the history of Christianity at this time the spirit of Constantine the Great is as evident as, or more evident than, the spirit of Jesus.”

[7] This is where the first version of the document ‘The Nicene Creed’ was written.

[8] This is where and when the second version of the ‘Nicean Creed’ was written that replaced the first one. In all there were 3 versions of the ‘Nicene Creed’. The one religious leaders use today is the third and last revision. The third and final revision was due to Charlemagne that proposed to add the words filio que (making the Holy Spirit a person separate from the Father and the Son) to the creed thus making the final version around 800 A.D.. From Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984) Subject: Creed, Creeds Page 283 The Three Creeds: ‘Nicene’ “Despite its name, the Nicene Creed must be distinguished from the creed of Nicaea (325). This is the third revision from the original creed of Nicaea, each one was more ‘Trinitarian’ then the last one.”

[9] From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Nicene Creed can refer to the original version adopted at the First Council of Nicaea (325), to the revised version adopted by the First Council of Constantinople (381), to the later Latin version that includes the phrase "Deum de Deo" and "Filioque", and to the Armenian version.

[10] The Nicene Creed: From: http://www.crcna.org/pages/nicene_creed.cfm

THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR ‘CRCNA MINISTRIES’: CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH

The Nicene Creed, also called the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, is a statement of the orthodox faith of the early Christian church in opposition to certain heresies, especially Arianism. These heresies, which disturbed the church during the fourth century, concerned the doctrine of the trinity and of the person of Christ. Both the Greek (Eastern) and the Latin (Western) church held this creed in honor, though with one important difference: the Western church insisted on the inclusion of the phrase "and the Son" (known as the "filioque") in the article on the procession of the Holy Spirit; this phrase still is repudiated by the Eastern Orthodox church. In its present form this creed goes back partially to the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) with additions by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381). It was accepted in its present form at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but the "filioque" phrase was not added until 589.

[11] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm



[12] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm



[13] Sources: Hoole, Charles H., trans. The Apostolic Fathers, the Epistles of S. Clement, S. Ignatius, S. Barnabas, S. Polycarp together with the Martyrdom of S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp. London: Irvingtons, 1872. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, trans. The Apostolic Fathers. London: Macmillan and Co., 1898. Roberts, Alexander Rev. and James Donaldson, trans. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Edinburgh: L & T Clark, 1867.

[14] Water Baptism according to the Bible and Historical Reference at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/baptism.htm

[15] Water Baptism according to the Bible and Historical Reference at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/baptism.htm

[16] Water Baptism according to the Bible and Historical Reference at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/baptism.htm

[17] THE SIGNIFICANCED OF WATER BAPTISM found at: http://apostolicpentecostaloneness.faithweb.com/water.htm and published in the PENTECOSTAL HERALD, August 1993.

[18] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm



[19] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[20] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[21] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[22] Christianity in the Apostolic Age by Professor Purves “The Oldest Church Manual called ‘The Teaching of the Apostles’ was discovered in the Jerusalem Monastery of the Greek Orthodox Church in Constantinople in 1873. In the ninth chapter and fifth verse we read: ‘Let no man partake of your Eucharist, except those baptized into the name of the Lord.’”

[23] Taken from ‘ALL THE FULLNESS – 1975 by David Campbell Chapter 2. ‘That Jesus Is God’ Subject: ‘His Absolute Deity Relative To His Incarnation’ Page 35.

[24] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm





[25] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[26] References To The Triad Dogma by Catholic Scholars found at: http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/triref.html

[27] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[28] Water Baptism according to the Bible and Historical Reference at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/baptism.htm

[29] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[30] Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge = S.P.C.K.

[31] Trinity believers not Oneness believers.

[32] Also true Oneness Believers don’t accept the theory of a Trinity of persons but do accept that God shows Himself in modes or manifestations, 3 of which being: 1. Father 2. Son and 3. Holy Spirit. Which being God He can quite well do all three or even more at the same time. See my paper ‘My Statement of the Godhead’ for more detail. Also go to www.geocities.com/elder_ashe/One1.html for a good Bible Study entitled: ‘Who is this Jesus we love and serve’.

[33] Evangelical Dictionary of Theology; Edited by Walter A. Elwell Ph.D. on subject of ‘Semi-Arianism’ Page 1000 ‘Semi-Arians also came to be called ‘Eusebians’ after Eusebius, bishop of Nicodedia and later patriarch of Constantinople. As a young man Eusebius had studied with Arius. Though he signed the creed at the Council of Nicea, he later became a key leader in the reaction against it.”

[34] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm





[35] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[36] Many of those who call themselves ‘Unitarian’ today are not Oneness nor Apostolic so be careful if you come across any of those who proclaim to be ‘Unitarian’. Mind you that there are still some who are actually Oneness and/or Apostolic so just, as the old saying goes, ‘Look before you leap.”

[37] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[38] THE SIGNIFICANCED OF WATER BAPTISM found at: http://apostolicpentecostaloneness.faithweb.com/water.htm and published in the PENTECOSTAL HERALD, August 1993.

[39] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[40] THE SIGNIFICANCED OF WATER BAPTISM found at: http://apostolicpentecostaloneness.faithweb.com/water.htm and published in the PENTECOSTAL HERALD, August 1993.

[41] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[42] John Henry Newman was ‘one of the century’s leading Roman Catholic Theologians.”

[43] Water Baptism according to the Bible and Historical Reference at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/baptism.htm

[44] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[45] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

[46] For more detailed information of the interpolation of Matthew 28:19, 1 John 5:7-8 and other such additions see my study called: “How to deal with and handle Scriptural Interpolations.”

[47] From A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis (Cwillis@ipa.net) found at website: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm



[48] Hagner, D. A. 1998. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 14-28 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary. Vol 33B (Mt 28:20). Word.

[49] Ralph P. Martin: Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. He holds the Ph. D. from the University of London and is the author of numerous books and articles, both scholarly and popular, about the New Testament.

[50] ‘Christianity according to St. Paul by C. A. A. Scott Cambridge 1932 page 119.

[51] The actual word ‘apostle’ means simply ‘to be called and then sent.’

[52] The thing to be cautious about here is that many of the really old copies of the manuscripts are preserved due to them having so many errors, misspelled words, out of order words, duplicate sentences, whole sections, etc. that they were shelved and never used so they, of course, didn’t get worn and wear out but was left undisturbed for centuries until discovered by someone.

[53] Interesting fact all the collected writings about Alexander the Great wasn’t even started to be written until 500 hundred years after his death and you can’t find anyone that would say those records and documents are false, altered or changed. Like I said,” Interesting”.

[54] Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972, Page 45

[55] Seigfried H. Horn, “The Old Testament Text in Antiquity,” Ministry (November 1987), 4, quoting W. F. Albright, New Light on Early Recension of the Hebrew Bible.

html hit counter