عقيدة الثالوث الفاسدة ... أدلة كثيرة

[Doctor X]

4- كتاب التفسير الحديث للكتاب المقدس طبعة دار الثقافة بمصر : تفسير إنجيل متى صـ 462 و صـ 463 :

https://www.scribd.com/doc/161173620...A7%D9%86%D8%B3

يقول التفسير :

والواقع أن المعمودية كانت في عصور العهد الجديد، بحسب ما جاء في مصادرنا بإسم يسوع وهو أمر غريب إذ أن يسوع وضع لنا صيغة ثالوث واضحة قبل صعوده وربما نجد تفسير ذلك فيما يقال من إن هذه الكلمات التي أصبحت تستعمل فيما بعد كصيغة ليتورجية (للممارسات الدينية) لم يكن هذا هو القصد منها أساسًا ولم تستعمل على هذا النحو لقد كانت بالأحرى وصفًا لما تحققه المعمودية أو لعل متى كان يلخص بصيغة أوضح وبلغة الكنيسة الرسمية (التي كتب بها) جوهر تعليم يسوع عن الله الذي سيعبدونه وهو تعليم أوضح فيه بجلاء شركته والروح القدس مع الآب وإن لم يكن فى صيغة معينة ولقد قيل ان هذه الكلمات لم تكن أساسا جزء من النص الأصلى لإنجيل متى لأن يوسابيوس قد اعتاد فى كتاباته أن يقتبس متى 28 : 19 فى صيغتها المختصرة : (فاذهبوا وتلمذوا جميع الأمم بإسمى) ولكن حيث أنه لا توجد حاليُا أية مخطوطة لإنجيل متى بها هذه القراءة فلا بد أن العبارة إختصرها يوسابيوس نفسه ولم ينقلها عن نص ورد فى مخطوطات موجودة بالفعل

أى أن تفسير وتبرير عدم وجود النص فى كتابات يوسابيوس هو أنه كان يذكر (صيغة مختصرة) ..
وهذا التبرير مرفوض قطعًا لأنها صيغة من فم الرب الذى قال :
(فَإِنِّي الْحَقَّ أَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِلَى أَنْ تَزُولَ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ لاَ يَزُولُ حَرْفٌ وَاحِدٌ أَوْ نُقْطَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ مِنَ النَّامُوسِ حَتَّى يَكُونَ الْكُلُّ)
فلا يجوز اختصارها ولا بترها ولا إنقاص (حَرْفٌ وَاحِدٌ أَوْ نُقْطَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ) من قبل أى شخص مهما كانت مكانته الدينية - خاصة أنها من أساس العقيدة -
وقد اقتبسها يوسابيوس 17 مرة بهذا (الإختصار) !!!

إذاً .. فالوصية (التعميد بإسم الآب والإبن والروح القدس) ليست من كلمات يسوع المسيح ..
بل هي صيغة كنسية أضيفت فيما بعد ولم تكن جزءً من إنجيل متى الأصلي
بدليل أن المعمودية كانت تمارس في عصر الرسل بإسم (يسوع) أو (الرب يسوع) فقط

[Doctor X]

5- مقالة توضح تحريف نص متى 28/19 بالأدلة الكثيرة :

http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html


Below are many historical quotes from theologians and other writers that heavily indicate that Matthew 28:19 has been altered.
It must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers” wanted it to become.)
This is what my research revealed. Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”

[Doctor X]

6- كتاب من أجل المسيحFor christ's sake صـ 103
Tom Harpur


“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 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 “


يتفق جميع أو أغلب دارسى وعلماء اللاهوت المحافظين على أن الجزء الأخير من هذه الوصية (الجزء الثالوثى من عدد متى 28/19) على الأقل قد تم إضافته لاحقاً. إذ أن هذه الصيغة غير موجودة في أي مكان آخر في العهد الجديد، ونحن نعلم من خلال الدليل الوحيد المتوفر لدينا (بقية العهد الجديد) أن الكنيسة الأولى لم تقم بتعميد الناس باستخدام هذه الألفاظ (الآب والإبن والروح القدس) بل إن التعميد كان بإسم يسوع فقط. وبالتالي يعتقد أن النص الأصلي يقول: (عمدوهم بإسمي) ومن ثم تمت توسعته (تغييره) ليطابق عقيدة الثالوث الكاثوليكية. وفي الحقيقة إن أول من أشار إلى هذا الأمر هم الناقدون الألمان بالإضافة إلى طائفة (الموحدين) في القرن التاسع عشر، وكان هذا الرأي شائع القبول في الأوساط العلمية حى عام 1919 عندما تم نشر تعليق بيك لأول مرة : (لم تراع كنيسة الأيام الأولى - 33 م - هذه الوصية العالمية - الثالوثية - حتى لو كانت تعرفها). فالأمر بتعميد الناس بالصيغة الثالوثية هو توسيع (تغيير) عقائدى متأخر تمت إضافته فيما بعد

[Doctor X]

7- شهادة من مقالة : (معمودية الماء)
WATER BAPTISM

A PAGAN AND JEWISH RITE, BUT NOT CHRISTIAN
PROVEN BY SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY
CONFIRMED BY THE LIVES OF SAINTS WHO
WERE NEVER BAPTIZED WITH WATER

By James H. Moon



http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17222...ND_JEWISH_RITE

تذكر هذه المقالة أن المعمودية أصلًا لا تكون بالماء ..
بل تكون بإسم (يسوع المسيح فقط) بحسب نصوص الكتاب المقدس التى يجب اتباعها حرفيًا :

فى صفحة 5-6 :

According to Matthew Christ commanded his disciples to go, teach all nations, baptizing them (not in the name, but) into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
No water is mentioned. He commanded them to baptize into the Divinity, not in water.
This harmonizes all the evangelists with both Peter and Paul.
If we reject this view and assume that in Matthew water baptism is intended to be understood, then we are compelled to believe that this interpretation of Matthew, with its formula for baptism, was conceived after the apostles' time; was unknown to them, and is a human conception and not a correct rendering of the teachings of Jesus. Because with water introduced, it stands alone and is out of harmony with the whole of Christ's teachings [Pg 6]upon other occasions, and because it conflicts with all our other six versions of the commission; and because (as we read), the apostles and first Christians never did baptize with the formula prescribed in Matthew, which is conclusive evidence that to their understandings Christ never commanded them to do so. And again, because the apostles and first Christians did continue to baptize with water, sometimes without formula but mostly in the name of Jesus Lord or Christ. This they would not have done in defiance of Christ's command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Upon these and many other grounds we claim that Christ never did command his disciples to baptize with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nor in any way whatever.

فى صفحة 9 :

Baptism with the formula, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not to be considered in connection with the apostles and first Christians, as they never mention it and evidently never practised it. Such formula was unknown at that time. It came in as an after[Pg 9]thought; a human invention of later date.

التعميد بصيغة الثالوث (بِاسْمِ الآبِ وَالاِبْنِ وَالرُّوحِ الْقُدُسِ) لا يجب ربطه بالرسل ولا بالمسيحيين الأوائل لأنهم لم يذكروا ولم ينفذوا هذه الصيغة أبدًا فمثل هذه الصيغة لم تكن معروفة فى هذا الوقت بل جاءت فى فترة تالية ولاحقة نتيجة أفكار واختراعات بشرية

[Doctor X]

8- شهادة W.J. Ferrar وتوصيته بحذف النص من الكتاب المقدس والرجوع إلى نص كلمات يسوع الحقيقة :

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/evr-last-gosp.htm


THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL
Excerpts from THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL, by Eusebius, edited by W.J. Ferrar
Eusebius' quotes referring to Matthew 28:19
Compiled by Clarke Wideman

The following seven citations of Matthew 28:19 are shown below in the quotations from the Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio) by Eusebius. The intent of this excerpt is not to purport accuracy of theology or philosophy of this man, but to glean from his access to the text of Matthew 28:19 in his day and time. For these citations, Eusebius (265 A.D. -- 339 A.D.) as proclaimed Bishop of Caesarea had access to the famed Library of Caesarea and thus references Matthew 28:19 from more ancient manuscripts housed therein than are available to us today.
(1) Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157
Whereas He, 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: How, pray, can we preach to Romans: How can we argue with the Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks: How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldaeans, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? 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." 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 the nations in my Name." He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: "for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations."
(2) Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152
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," …
(3) Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159
But when I turn my eyes away to the evidence of the power of the Word, what multitudes it has won, and what enormous churches have been founded by those unlettered and mean disciples of Jesus, not in obscure and unknown places, but in the most noble cities—I mean in Royal Rome, in Alexandria, and Antioch, through the whole of Egypt and Libya, Europe and Asia, and in villages and country places and among the nations--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."
(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175
And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."
(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20
Hence 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." (1)
Note 1 in W. J. Ferrar’s edition: Matthew 28:19. The verse is quoted thus seven times in the Demonstratio with the omission of the reference to Baptism and the Trinity. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, i. (1902-3) p. 102), who holds that the reference was interpolated for dogmatic reasons, and was not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicea, supports his view from the practice of Eusebius. This is the view of Kirsopp Lake, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ii. 380 and Moffatt, The Historical New Test. 1901, p. 647. The historicity of the words as ipsissima verba is denied by Harnack, Clemen, and J. A. Robinson, Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Baptism" From the Acts taken literally it would be gathered that apostolic Baptism was simply in the Name of Jesus. – (Acts 8:12-16; Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16)
(6) Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24
"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?
(7) Book I, Chapter 6, 24 (c), p. 42
"Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all the nations … teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you."
Bibliography: Eusebius (265-339) Bishop of Caesarea around 314 was referred to as the son of Pamphilus. He wrote many books, the best known of which is the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Other writings were the Praeparatio, the Demonstratio from which we have The Proof of the Gospel, Quaestiones ad Stephanum, and the Epitome. According to the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "His time considered him its most learned man."
The above seven referenced quotations of Matthew 28:19 according to Eusebius reflects the verse as he read it from the text in the library in Caesarea. The problem with most translations including the King James Version, as it relates to the text of Matthew 28:19, is that they reflect an erroneous addition of wording of Catholic origin and not the correct words spoken by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As the verse and the doctrine of the Trinity were being discussed in his day, and having access to the original, Eusebius denounced the reading of Matthew 28:19 with the Trinitarian phrase as the most serious of all the falsifications.
It is time for modern-day Christianity to get back to the actual words of our Lord Jesus and quote the words as they were actually written in the "Everlasting Gospel" of Matthew as:
"Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the nations in my name" (Matthew 28:19).
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall first be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). Could the correct rendition of Matthew’s Gospel play a part in the distribution of the Everlasting Gospel? (Revelation 14:6 -- "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people").


http://jesus-messiah.com/html/evr-last-gosp2.htm


THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL
THE HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
Compiled by Clarke Wideman

"Shem-Tob, the man who possessed an ancient Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, was a Hebrew and his precious Book dates back to early time. Shem-Tob was not an adherent of Primitive Judaic-Christianity of Acts two, but was of Judaism. He was not overly friendly to Judaic or Jewish-Christianity, i.e., of Acts two. Fortunately, he did not translate this Hebrew Book of Matthew from Latin, the Latin Vulgate, Byzantine Greek, or any other Greek edition of the Gospel of Matthew. His source was from a true copy of Matthew. It was independent of Roman Catholic source. He received it solely from previous Jewish scribes. From that premise we may freely receive it as pure text and authentic." (Dr. Marvin Arnold, The BIBLE, TRINITY, AND MATTHEW 28:19, p.70)
"Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Book of Matthew is the most accurate text of the First Gospel now existing. It underwent a different process of transmission than the Greek, since it was preserved by the Jews, and thus independent from the Catholic Community." (George Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer Univ. Press, Georgia, 1995, p.190)
Further, Dr. Arnold writes, The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew does not have the Catholic fabricated titles and phrases: "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The Hebrew Book of Matthew is free from Roman Catholic bias, slants, and Trinitarian interpolations. (George Howard, op.cit. p. 234).
"In summary, Eusebius, a noted historian, inherited from Pamphilus a famous library begun by Origen that could have easily contained the original Hebrew text of Matthew, or if not, a copy of the original Matthew text. Jerome (A.D. 331-A.D. 420) supports this in the following statement recorded in the citation below:"

Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers - "Matthew, who is also Levi … composed a Gospel … in the Hebrew language and characters… Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected."

(This library in Caesarea was said to have been destroyed by fire.)
The Proof of the Gospel, by Eusebius as edited by W.J. Ferrar - Note 3 of Book 3, ch.5, p. 137: That Matthew "wrote in Hebrew the Gospel that bears his name" is stated by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, iii. 24. In The Proof of the Gospel, Book 3, ch.7, p. 157, he cited that only one phrase, "in my name" was after, "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations."
Knupfer, Editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte - Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19."
Conybeare -- 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 the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."
Therefore, we have confirmation that Shem-Tob, F.C. Conybeare, and Eusebius of Caesarea, all verified that Matthew 28:19 did not end as we see it in our KJV. More than likely, it ended with Jesus’ wording more like this: "Go, make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to keep all things which I have commanded you."
Why shouldn’t we quote Matthew 28:19 from the earliest quotations and renditions available and therefore closer to the actual words of our Lord? Truth versus Catholicism tampering -- It is your choice. Could this be a part of the Everlasting Gospel revealed in the last days? (Revelation 14:6 -- "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people").

[Doctor X]

9- مقالة أخرى توضح تحريف نص متى 28/19 بالأدلة الكثيرة :


A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
by
Clinton D. Willis


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 28:19
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Tom Harpur
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, 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 diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and 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."
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a 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, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles 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 whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.


http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

[Doctor X]

الخلاصة :

كل هذه الشواهد والأدلة السابقة
تعارض نص متى 28/19 (فَاذْهَبُوا وَتَلْمِذُوا جَمِيعَ الأُمَمِ وَعَمِّدُوهُمْ بِاسْمِ الآبِ وَالاِبْنِ وَالرُّوحِ الْقُدُسِ)
وتؤكد أنه نصٌ مختلقٌ مفبرك ولا يصح نسبته للمسيح

فبشهادة يسوع المسيح نفسه ....
أعمال تلاميذه ورسله ....
وشهادة كثير من علماء المسيحية القدامى والمعاصرين ....

فإن هذا النص محرف بالزيادة
وقد تم تعديله وتحريفه من قبل الكنيسة الكاثوليكية عمدًا بغرض تدعيم (عقيدة الثالوث).
------------------------------------
والحمد لله الذى بنعمته تتم الصالحات

[للدين مستعدين]

الحمد لله رب العالمين .. يسمع دعاء الخلائق ويجيب
يستر العصاه ويمهل البغاه .. ومن تاب إليه فهو منيب

هل الإنسان الطبيعي يقبل بعقيدة الثالوث ؟
ملف مرفق 16192


ما الفضل إلا لأهل العلم إنهمُ ... على الهُدى لمن إستهدى أدلاءُ
وقيمة المرء ماقد كان يحسنهُ ... والجاهلون لأهل العلم أعداءُ


سلمت يمناك أخي الفاضل وجزاك الله خير الجزاء وجعله في ميزان حسناتك