Trinitiarian Interpolations in Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hi everyone. I was talking to a Muslim guy last night about Islam and the Trinity and he said that verses such as the one where Jesus instructs us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are interpolations. What do you say about this? 🤷:confused:
 
Hi everyone. I was talking to a Muslim guy last night about Islam and the Trinity and he said that verses such as the one where Jesus instructs us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are interpolations. What do you say about this? 🤷:confused:
 
Hi everyone. I was talking to a Muslim guy last night about Islam and the Trinity and he said that verses such as the one where Jesus instructs us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are interpolations. What do you say about this? 🤷:confused:
Those verses are Scripture. That’s sufficient.
 
You could ask him why he believes the pronouncements of an illerate Bedouin who sat in a cave and received counsel from the Angel Gabriel.
 
there is no textual evidence that this reference to the Trinity was an interpolation.

all the earliest manuscripts we have available read with the trinitarian formula intact. it as not as though some early manuscripts contain it and others do not; as far as i know, all do.

there is textual evidence for other alterations (nearly all minor and none refuting the basic Christian claims about Jesus’ person and biography), from manuscript to manuscipt, but not in this case.
 
here is what to do. Ask your muslim friend if he considers Jesus to be a prophet of God. This is all muslims are willing to attribute to Jesus. If he says yes, which he probably will then ask him if Mohammed was a prophet of the same God. He will say yes again. Then ask him how is it that one prophet of God will contradict another prophet of God. Then ask him how is it that in Islam they believe God contradicts Himself. Specifically Jesus said we must love our enemies and do good to them but Mohammed said we must kill our enemies [infidels].
 
I would assume that he’s talking about Matthew 28 (…baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? I’m not sure what he would mean by ā€œinterpolationā€. If he means to suggest that this part of Matthew was not original to Matthew (which is what he is saying if we are using interpolation as it’s usually mean), then he needs to bring forward some good reasons to justify his assertion.

Oh, and by the way, I’m not aware of any textual variants on this verse. It appears original to Matthew.
 
Holly,
The support for the Trinity is derived primarily from Jesus’ self-revelatory statements where he declares ā€˜the Father and I are one’ and ā€˜the Spirit and I are one’. If the hearer believes what he/she hears then simple reasoning provides the rest; if A = B and B = C, then A = C. So the one nature of God is triune. Three in one is a mystery to be sure, but it is based on Jesus’ own statements about himself. Another, ā€˜If you have seen the Father you have seen me…’
Concerning your reference to the command to baptize, Jesus commands the Apostles to baptize in His name, and His name (or identity ) is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The word ā€œTrinityā€ does not occur in scripture, it came about later as the Church wrestled with all the ideas circulating about who or what is Jesus.
Also, I think your friend is claiming that this verse was not part of the original Gospel and was later ā€˜inserted’ as the belief in the Trinity developed in the church. This is a ā€œtampered textā€ approach aimed at diminishing the credibility of the verse. I personally reject that idea concerning this particular verse.

PeterK
 
Hi everyone. I was talking to a Muslim guy last night about Islam and the Trinity and he said that verses such as the one where Jesus instructs us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are interpolations. What do you say about this? 🤷:confused:
Holly, an interpolation can be understood here as something inserted and / or added which may not have been there originally. In this case, your friend may be saying that the Trinitarian formula (as we know it today) was not written by St. Matthew but rather added to later. However, no mention of this exists in the writings of the early Church Fathers or anywhere throughout the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church. St. Matthew, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ was present when the words of Christ were spoken:

16: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
17: And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.
18: And Jesus came and said to them, ā€œAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.ā€


St. Matthew 28:16-20

Verse 16 tells us that Jesus told this to the eleven, and St. Matthew was one of the eleven. Since he wrote the Gospel and he heard our Lord speak those words, and no historical evidence can be found that verse 19 has been added at a later date as it appears in the earliest of manuscripts, I would say that the burden of proof belongs to your friend to show. God bless you, Holly for defending Biblical and historical truths.

If your friend needs further proof, you might want to offer the ā€œCodex Sinaiticusā€ which is the oldest manuscript available, dating to about 350 AD. Here is the link which should take you directly to the chapter in question, scroll down to verse 19 for further proof.

codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

:blessyou:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top