But is everything declared to be so by the Church, true?

[polonius]

A recent response to a post contained a very common belief among
Catholics:

"The CC has declared that ….."

Do you believe everything that the Catholic Church declares? Shall we look at some "infallible" teachings?

[polonius]

MarysSon posted:

"The same if true for the Trinity. It wasn't officially defined until the Church was about 300 years old - but it was ALWAYS taught."

Question: When was the existence of a "Trinity" first taught?

In Scripture (Matt. 28:19).

Was this added to Matthew's gospel?


I believe there
are four or five reports of Baptism in scripture. All are in the name of Jesus alone. Look it up. No mention of a Trinity.




"Holders of the Jesus' Name doctrine assert that baptism in the name of Jesus is the proper method, and most (not all) feel that baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is invalid because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names but titles[9] Alternatively, the name of the Son is Jesus, so it is argued the actual name Jesus should be used; Jesus is the name of the Son, and arguably also the name of the Father and Holy Ghost.

"There are a number of scholars who claim that the development of baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is a post-Apostolic interpolation and corruption and that the "Trinitarian" clause in Matthew 28:19 was added in the 2nd/3rd century.[10] They cite as evidence that no record exists in the New Testament of someone being baptized with the Trinitarian formula. While this view supports those who baptise in Jesus' Name, this point is not heavily contested. Those who assume the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, explain the command is correctly fulfilled by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ". Such adherents are generally Oneness Pentecostals who believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not to be regarded as distinct persons in the Godhead, and that the name "Jesus" is the supreme revelatory name of the one God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.[11]

[Charles]

It teaches that -
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (847)"

The fact that Romans 1:20 teaches against there being anyone who has not seen the proof of the divinity and power of YHWH sort of suggests no one has missed the gospel either...and coupled with the depravity of sinners, make this sentiment highly unlikely.

[MarysSon]

The fact that Romans 1:20 teaches against there being anyone who has not seen the proof of the divinity and power of YHWH sort of suggests no one has missed the gospel either...and coupled with the depravity of sinners, make this sentiment highly unlikely.

HUH??
I only posted this excerpt from Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to illustrate that this Church does NOT mean that only Catholics get to go to Heaven.

[MarysSon]

Was this added to Matthew's gospel?

I believe there
are four or five reports of Baptism in scripture. All are in the name of Jesus alone. Look it up. No mention of a Trinity.

"Holders of the Jesus' Name doctrine assert that baptism in the name of Jesus is the proper method, and most (not all) feel that baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is invalid because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names but titles[9] Alternatively, the name of the Son is Jesus, so it is argued the actual name Jesus should be used; Jesus is the name of the Son, and arguably also the name of the Father and Holy Ghost.

"There are a number of scholars who claim that the development of baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is a post-Apostolic interpolation and corruption and that the "Trinitarian" clause in Matthew 28:19 was added in the 2nd/3rd century.[10] They cite as evidence that no record exists in the New Testament of someone being baptized with the Trinitarian formula. While this view supports those who baptise in Jesus' Name, this point is not heavily contested. Those who assume the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, explain the command is correctly fulfilled by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ". Such adherents are generally Oneness Pentecostals who believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not to be regarded as distinct persons in the Godhead, and that the name "Jesus" is the supreme revelatory name of the one God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.[11]

Nope - this was ALWAYS in Matt. 28:19.

Funny that the ONE time Jesus gave explicit instructions on HOW to Baptize - HE said to do it in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . .[/quote]

[Charles]

Note that the early Christians remained devout Temple worshipping Jews including "Hear O Israel, the Lord is One". They didn't have a Trinity.

The Shema does NOT mitigate against the Trinity, only a misinterpretation of it does. ONE is echad which in Gen 2:24 has echad, ONE - as a UNITY.

[Yahwehismywitness]

Funny that the ONE time Jesus gave explicit instructions on HOW to Baptize - HE said to do it in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . .

No he did not the passage was changed review history:
https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicind ... tthew.html

[MarysSon]

No he did not the passage was changed review history:
https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicind ... tthew.html

You mean, "REVISE history" . . .

SEVERAL red flags go up as I read this link – not the least of which is the following quote:
"How far back can we find the trinitarian baptismal formula in Scripture sources? It can only be found in those dated after the church in the 300s first adopted the trinity doctrine."

THIS, coupled with the fact that there are NO extant autographs of Matthew’s Gospel available is clear evidence that these opinions are simply that – OPINIONS and not facts.

When discerning whether or not something was a belief of the 1st century Church – it is important to consider extrabiblical evidence such as The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), which dates as far back as 60 AD. This document is used by scholars to corroborates MANY of the teachings of the 1st century Church – including the Baptismal formula.

From The Didache:
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 not living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice 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 whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

You might also be interested to know that the doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer (For thine is the kingdom . . .) in non-Catholic Bibles was NOT originally found in Scripture – but is from The Didache as well.

[polonius]

Perhaps some believers should really acquaint themselves with the Didache, an early Christian writing. Some say it was written in 60 AD.

That's not entirely correct. It may have been started then, but

"The Text
The manuscript is a composite document suggesting a multistage redaction (undergoing mutliple editing processes over a period of time). The variance of style and content suggest composition from numerous preredactional manuscripts (texts that were previously unedited) that eventually came to be the present text."

Are you familiar with it's contradistinctions?

For example:

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/s ... le/didache

"The Didache meaning “Teaching� is the short name of a Christian manual compiled before 300AD. The full title is The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some Christians thought Didache was inspired, but the church rejected it when making the final decision which books to include in the New Testament."

John W. Riggs' 1984 The Second Century article for the proposition that 'there are two quite separate eucharistic celebrations given in Didache 9–10, with the earlier one now put in second place."[51] The section beginning at 10.1 is a reworking of the Jewish birkat ha-mazon, a three-strophe prayer at the conclusion of a meal, which includes a blessing of God for sustaining the universe, a blessing of God who gives the gifts of food, earth, and covenant, and a prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem; the content is "Christianized", but the form remains Jewish.[52] It is similar to the Syrian Church eucharist rite of the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, belonging to "a primordial era when the euchology of the Church had not yet inserted the Institution Narrative in the text of the Eucharistic Prayer."

In short, the earliest description is basically the Jewish blessing over a meal and has no reference to a Eucharist.

Since the earliest Gospel was written in the 70's by Mark, this is understandable.

[polonius]

"The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides “faith alone,� purgatory—were evident long before this supposed “paganization� took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical records that imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all, or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by “faith alone,� and an invisible church).''

[MarysSon]

Perhaps some believers should really acquaint themselves with the Didache, an early Christian writing. Some say it was written in 60 AD.

That's not entirely correct. It may have been started then, but

"The Text
The manuscript is a composite document suggesting a multistage redaction (undergoing mutliple editing processes over a period of time). The variance of style and content suggest composition from numerous preredactional manuscripts (texts that were previously unedited) that eventually came to be the present text."

Are you familiar with it's contradistinctions?

For example:

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/s ... le/didache

"The Didache meaning “Teaching� is the short name of a Christian manual compiled before 300AD. The full title is The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some Christians thought Didache was inspired, but the church rejected it when making the final decision which books to include in the New Testament."

John W. Riggs' 1984 The Second Century article for the proposition that 'there are two quite separate eucharistic celebrations given in Didache 9–10, with the earlier one now put in second place."[51] The section beginning at 10.1 is a reworking of the Jewish birkat ha-mazon, a three-strophe prayer at the conclusion of a meal, which includes a blessing of God for sustaining the universe, a blessing of God who gives the gifts of food, earth, and covenant, and a prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem; the content is "Christianized", but the form remains Jewish.[52] It is similar to the Syrian Church eucharist rite of the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, belonging to "a primordial era when the euchology of the Church had not yet inserted the Institution Narrative in the text of the Eucharistic Prayer."

In short, the earliest description is basically the Jewish blessing over a meal and has no reference to a Eucharist.

Since the earliest Gospel was written in the 70's by Mark, this is understandable.

NOT sure why you're trying to make an argument against the Eucharist in the Didache when we weren't discussing this at ALL.
We were discussing the Trinitarian Baptismal formula substantiated by the Didache.

By the way - I NEVER stated that it was an inspired document. I said that it was an historical document that corresponded with Scripture.
Nice dodge, though . . .