Matt 28:19 vs. Mark 16:15: The Great Commission

[ValiantDomain]

Received this argument against the Trinity today:

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.

In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach
to all nations. While this “Great Commission” does make mention of the three
persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase “…baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is
quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words
of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:

1. baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was
   done only in the name of Jesus; and
2. the “Great Commission” was found in the first gospel written, that of
   Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the
Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted
that the phrase “… there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” is definitely a
“later addition” to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today’s
versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings
was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This
doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely
man-made in origin.

Thoughts?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

see this thread on the ending of mark 16, it is not in the best greek manuscripts, but there is ample evidence in tradition for the longer ending. You can make an argument that the longer ending of Mark is disputable because there are four or five endings in existence. His same sources that point out that the Johannine Comma ( I John 5:7 ) is not genuine will also point out that the ending of Mark is not original too.

p067.ezboard.com/fthetruth11187frm2.showMessage?topicID=265.topic

Most likely, the Johannine Comma ( I John 5:7 ) is not genuine, but if you want to make a case for it, visit King James Only sites,

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Johannine+Comma

However, we do have very good outside of the new testament evidence about the baptismal formula,

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

The Didache is an early church manual dated as early as 50 AD by a few, most date it around 90 AD some as late as 110 AD.

It sounds like you are dealing with a “Jesus Only”, Modalist, Sabellian doctrine that God appeared in three modes.

Here is a very strong argument you can use against Oneness people.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116322

Basically, in John 1:1b “the word was face to face with God”

John 1:1c is saying that “the word was by nature God”

For the oneness position to be true, the greek of John 1:1c would have to say “the word was the God”, but that would contradict John 1:1b which distinquishes them as two seperate persons who are face to face with each other.

The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study

By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com

spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm

carm.org/misc/plurality.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

p067.ezboard.com/fthetruth11187frm2.showMessageRange?topicID=205.topic&start=21&stop=40

You can see how the “face to face” argument works at this thread.

 

[TOME]

First, I would have to point out that Jesus is not just another of “God’s prophets”, he is God Incarnate.

Now to your questions, I think you may be tempted to go along the lines of earlier historical criticism scholars (Rudolph Bultmann comes to mind here) who seem to see the NT and the Christ event an a man made reaction to the historical and very human Jesus.

However, if you first believe, as I do, that the gospels did developed at different times from and for different faith communities to the kergyma and their lived faith experience, then you might more easily accept that yes there are differences as you pointed out. However, instead of these differences pointing to fabrication I believe they point to the ongoing theological development in the Church.

I think to get a better concept of how the theology of such beliefs in the Sacraments (Baptism in this case) or such as at Peter’s Confession, it is important to understand two important aspects of doctrina; development. First, doctrinal teachings often are rooted in the liturgical life of the Church. As the liturgical life of the Church developed and practices evolved we can find along with this evolution a deeper understanding by the Church of the teachings and practices of Christ and then the Apostles. Most often these liturgical rites were practiced before they were written down as found in the differences in the liturgical rights proclaimed in the letters of Paul (1 Corinthians and Philippians for example) the Acts of the Apostles and finally in the Gospels themselves or in extra-canonical works such as the Didache.

The second aspect that should be remembered is that the norm seems to have been, as stated above, that liturgical rites which lead to a development and then proclamation of beliefs, were generally accepted without evidence of questioning. It is only later, when different heresies arose to challange the accepted Church teaching and practices do were then find the development of a systematic theology of Doctrine and Dogma - but this would happen until the 2nd and 3rd centuries - such as the sacramental theology of Baptism and coming from the various heresies which denied either Chist Human or Divine Nature we find the development of the Doctrines of the Incarnation which lead eventually to the Doctrine of the Trinity.

So my final word is, what we really find in the apparent differences in the gospels and letters of the NT is an ever deepening in the Church’s understanding of itself, it mission and it sacramental/liturgical life. This development is reflected throughout the NT but in no way is it a mere human fabrication of a manmade theology.

 

[bones_IV]

To say that Matthew 28:19 “baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is an addition is a Straw man argument. The argument “baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus” is also incorrect. For Paul even is his letters does a doxology at the end of his letters. Furthermore, the oneness people are getting the bible to say what they want it to say. Their translations are an opinion of the bible scholar. Hence ours is one that’s under the authority of the Church.