The trinity?

Question

I know some groups deny the trinity. For those who don't believe in the trinity can you explain why Jesus taught to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Just curious what you think of the following verse.

Matthew 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:

Answer 1

Amazing - so far only 5 answers from those who deny the trinity and not one of them has actually squared up to the challenge of Matthew 28:19! They've gone shooting off at every tangent possible to attack the trinity, yet without admitting they know what the problem of Matthew 28:19 is!

Well, in case they don't know, it might be worth spelling out: Jesus said, 'in the NAME of...' SINGULAR! He did not say, 'in the names of...' plural, did he? Three separate beings with three separate names requires plural grammar. But three persons within the one divine being remains singular. Jesus knew that.

Answer 2

All authority has been given to Jesus, although He is not yet exercising all of it ( See Phil 2:9-11, Heb 2:5-9, 10:12, 13, Rev 3:21 ) He will manifest this power when He returns in all His glory (See Matt 19:28, 1 Cor 15:27,28, Eph 1:10 )

Therefore shows that the Great Commission rests on the authority Christ. Because He has authority over all, everyone needs to hear His gospel. The word "name" is singular although it is the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit all together. This verse is another identification that God is one in three Persons.

I am with you always demonstrates that Jesus is true Immanuel, " God with us " (See Matt 1:23, Heb 13:5,6, Rev 21:3 )

Answer 3

Quite a few years ago I was to explain the trinity to a minister, and when I opened my mouth, a dumb spirit stopped me. I couldn't think ! To me the trinity is simple and easy to understand.
Flesh : God manifest in the flesh = Jesus
Spirit : The Life of God = Holy Spirit
Soul : The mind of God = Father

The Bible tells us that we can understand the things of the spiritual realm, by seeing what is in the natural . So, to understand the Trinity, we just have to look at our self.

Baptise in the Authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that Authority came through Jesus, the fullness of the Godhead, bodily.

Right now there is separation, but when all have been put under the feet of Jesus, God will be ONE again, but just like us, three parts.

Answer 4

I have to start writing where I read cetain questionable things in the bible. The other day I was reading the bible and one of the apostles refers to Jesus as a prophet. That threw me. I have begun to question ALOT. I am wondering if perhaps it is as others say and not necessarily a trinity. I have to read more of the bible. I love Jesus and it is hard for me to even think differently then what I was taught and always believed to be true. Also, there are plenty of times Jesus tells us to worship God.

Answer 5

It was as a sign of respect, so when we get baptized we are to respect God, his son and God's active force(holy spirit) just mentioning their names does not make those are suposed a part of a trinity.Jesus himself told us that he is who?God?No! God's son!(John10:36)"what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son' What about God what did God say about who Jesus is?Did he say that Jesus is God in human form? No! When Jesus was baptized God said Jesus is his son!(Matthew3:17)
17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." There is another interesting statement that Jesus makes considering thast that all who are part of the trinity are said to be coequal (John14:28)28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. These are just some of the Scriptures that show the trinity is not a
Bible teaching but a teaching of men.
What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not 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. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k 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.”-(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Answer 6

Glad you brought up that verse. So many folks claim the trinity is not mentioned in the bible at all. Naturally, we still do not use that as proof of the trinity. Matt XVI, verses 18-19 gave the infallible authority to the Catholic Church to formulate this dogma. We claim the dogma was formulated from parts of the scripture, a reasoning process and faith. However, this Matt 28:19 is probably one of those parts that may have been considered in formulating the dogma. Thanks for calling that verse to my attention.

Answer 7

If you don't believe in the Trinity, how do you explain the dialog in Psalm 2 and others?

"Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." Psa 2:3

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Psa 2:7

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psa 2:12

I don't understand why people try and deny the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not a New Testament thing.

"Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." Psa 51:11

"Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" Isa 63:11

Answer 8

You have to read the whole bible to understand that there is no such thing as the trinity. Staunch trinitarians will list scriptures taken out of context or mistranslated, but the bible should be read in context.

The expression “in the name of” means “in recognition of.” Water baptism in recognition of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. Water baptism (in the name of the holy spirit) is not the same as baptism in holy spirit but it was a new expression involving holy spirit.

The apostle Peter encouraged his listeners: “Let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.” He then concluded by saying: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” About 3,000 souls responded.—Acts 2:36, 38, 41.

These were baptized in the name of (in recognition of) the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. Though Peter did not tell them to get baptized in the name of the Father, they already recognized God as Sovereign Lord, since they were natural Jews, members of a nation dedicated to Him. Peter did say: ‘Be baptized in the name of the Son.’ So their baptism signified their recognition of Jesus as Christ. They were now his disciples and accepted that forgiveness of sins was henceforth through him. Finally, the baptism was in recognition of the holy spirit, and it was undergone in response to the promise that they would receive the spirit as a free gift.




Sasi - So if someone said; "in recognition of John, Philip and Mark"...that wouldn't make sense to you? You wouldn't need to say in the name(s) of such and such, you only have to say in the name of......, ...... and ......

You could say, "stop! in the name of the law and...."

Not

"stop, in the name(s) of the law and...."

Answer 9

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.

Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says:

"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The 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 - 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 to work in the 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 did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'"

"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103

This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard reference for students of the Bible. It says:

"This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."

For example, these Christian scholars observed that after Jesus allegedly issued this command and then was taken up into heaven, the apostles displayed a complete lack of knowledge of this command.

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'"

Acts 2:38.

These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the apostles would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, alone.

As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at least three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had, as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles . So we notice that not only does this verse never claim that the three are one, or even that the three are equal, but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost") was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was inserted by the church long after Jesus' departure.

Answer 10

I take it to mean that when I was baptized, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were there to witness my baptism and commitment to Christ and the gospel :)

edit: And to the people giving me thumbs-down. That's fine if you don't agree with me. It'd be pretty dull if everyone believed exactly the same thing as everyone else.