NO SECOND "god" (Teologie, Docu)

 

A second god?

 

We are facing a second problem. The first issue was with the lack of these specific words in the Masoretic Text: “All the angels of God worship him”.

 

If the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was a Jew, then we would expect him to have written to his brethren in their mother tongue and quoted from a Hebrew version, not from the Septuagint. You might ask, was the letter written in Hebrew?  Yes!  After reading the epistle we see that the author is very familiar with the Jewish environment in Judea and the Hebrew Scriptures, so the text itself testifies that the author was a Hebrew.

 

But who is the author?

The Epistle tells us that those in Italy greeted their Jewish brothers, and Timothy was released from prison by the authorities, so the author was someone who was in Italy at the time. From this we can conclude that both, the author of the epistle and his companion were imprisoned because of their faith (Hebrews 13:23,24).

 

Saint Pantaenus died in the year 200 AD, and was a significant figure in second century Christianity. Citing an old tradition inherited from Bishop Pantaneus, who collected the apostolic writings, this description fits best with Paul and Timothy in tandem, who had been together for a long time (Acts 16.1-3), according to Clement of Alexandria, although it was written by Paul, it was only translated into Greek by Luke.

 

In 1931, a scroll was found called Chester Beatty.  Roll number two contains eighty sheets, a collection of Paul’s letters alone, including this one. All this together, can be a guarantee that the apostle Paul is the author of the epistle to the Jews, as the ancestral tradition of Christians maintains.

 

If apostle Paul is the author of the epistle and he was a Pharisees, he certainly had the Pharisee-approved version of the Hebrew Scriptures, the text on which the Masoretic Text was based. Notice then in this text there can not be found any mention of an additional, or second god, as in the text of the Septuagint. What version would the apostle Paul have quoted to his Jewish brothers?

 

Let’s see the entire Psalm 45 in the Masoretic Text, according to the JPS Tanakh 1917:

1.For the Leader; upon Shoshannim; [a Psalm] of the sons of Korah. Maschil. A

Song of loves.

2.My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter;

I say: ‘My work is concerning a king’;

My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

3.Thou art fairer than the children of men;

Grace is poured upon thy lips;

Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

4.Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one,

Thy glory and thy majesty.

5.And in thy majesty prosper, ride on,

In behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness;

And let thy right hand teach thee tremendous things.

6.Thine arrows are sharp—

The peoples fall under thee—

[They sink] into the heart of the king’s enemies.

7.Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

9.Myrrh, and aloes, and cassia are all thy garments;

Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad.

10.Kings’ daughters are among thy favourites;

At thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

11.‘Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear;

Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house;

12.So shall the king desire thy beauty;

For he is thy lord; and do homage unto him.

13.And, O daughter of Tyre, the richest of the people

Shall entreat thy favour with a gift.’

14.All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace;

Her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold.

15.She shall be led unto the king on richly woven stuff;

The virgins her companions in her train being brought unto thee.

16.They shall be led with gladness and rejoicing;

They shall enter into the king’s palace.

17.Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons,

Whom thou shalt make princes in all the land.

18.I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations;

Therefore shall the peoples praise thee for ever and ever.

 

No mention of an additional or second god.

 

Let’s compare it with the Brenton version of the Septuagint, where a second god appears:

1.For the end, for alternate strains by the sons of Core; for instruction, a Song concerning the beloved. My heart has uttered a good matter: I declare my works to the king: my tongue is the pen of a quick writer.

2.Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men: grace has been shed forth on thy lips: therefore God has blessed thee for ever.

3.Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in thy comeliness, and in thy beauty;

4.and bend thy bow, and prosper, and reign, because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall guide thee wonderfully.

5.Thy weapons are sharpened, Mighty One, (the nations shall fall under thee) they are in the heart of the king's enemies.

6.Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

7.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows.

8.Myrrh, and stacte, and cassia are exhaled from thy garments, and out of the ivory palaces,

9.with which kings' daughters have gladdened thee for thine honour: the queen stood by on thy right hand, clothed in vesture wrought with gold, and arrayed in divers colours.

10.Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear; forget also thy people, and thy father's house.

11.Because the king has desired thy beauty; for he is thy Lord.

12.And the daughter of Tyre shall adore him with gifts; the rich of the people of the land shall supplicate thy favour.

13.All her glory is that of the daughter of the king of Esebon, robed as she is in golden fringed garments,

14.in embroidered clothing: virgins shall be brought to the king after her: her fellows shall be brought to thee.

15.They shall be brought with gladness and exultation: they shall be led into the king's temple.

16.Instead of thy fathers children are born to thee: thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.

17.They shall make mention of thy name from generation to generation: therefore shall the nations give thanks to thee for ever, even for ever and ever.

As we see, the problem arises in verse 6, where a second god appears:

 

Masoretic Text 7.Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

 

Brenton Septuagint 6.Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

7.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows.

 

Why would a Jew write to other Jews in Greek?  Why would a learned Jew like Paul, who was a Pharisee, quote from the Septuagint, as it was considered by the Jews to be a dubious translation?

 

The echo of the Septuagint translation left a bitter taste in Judea, we learn this from Jewish sources.  This translation was well received by some of the elite of the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, but not by all, and this was not at all the case in the translators native country. The position found in the Jewish tradition regarding this translation is one of disapproval.  A passage from the Talmud, Mesechta Sofrim, echoes those times, when the Torah was translated into Greek for Emperor Ptolemy: “The day was as difficult for the Jewish people as the day they worshiped the golden calf".

 

Why was the day of the presentation of this translation composed by those 72 scholars so difficult for the Jews in Judaea?  They saw the great compromise  that was made.  What was introduced into the text?

 

Megillat Taanit, lit. “The Fasting Scroll" is an ancient text, in the form of a chronicle, about the fasting days of the Jews. This ancient chronicle tell us that on the 8th day of Tevet the translation of the Torah into Greek was completed in the days of Emperor Ptolemy, and darkness descended upon the world for three days. In this heavenly sign, some saw the divine disapproval of this work, which is why it was decided to commemorate this day as a day of fasting and regret.

 

Aristeas' letter tells us that the 72 scholars brought with them a leather scroll on which the Hebrew text was written in gold letters. Given that the text was brought from the high priest Eleazar (c. 260–245 BC), and the priests usually joined the ancestors of the Sadducee sect, we can assume that the text was adapted to this ideology, as seen in the notes from Genesis 1:1,26 and Genesis 11:7.

 

A note from the Masorites states that in Genesis 18:22 there was a correction added to the text. So it is possible that before this correction the text sounded like this: “Those men went away and went to Sodom. But the angel of Yehowah still stood before Abraham.” The Sadducee priests, who did not believe in angels in the traditional sense, removed the word angel, as they removed the plural “let us” from Genesis 1:26 and 11:7 for a singular “let I”, to support their pantheistic ideology. It is possible that this Sadducee thesis of denying angels as distinct heavenly beings appeared in Judea after the Jews entered the sphere of Hellenistic influence. Pantheism is a monistic philosophical conception that identifies divinity with all matter and the universe, God being the Universe and Nature. The pantheists wanted to believe that all the gods are only one god, these gods being only the face of one god. So the pantheists believed in one god with many faces. This ideology was also embraced by the Sadducees, who saw in angels only the face of God, not distinct heavenly persons.

 

Did not know - a learned man like the apostle Paul -  the controversial history of this translation, the Septuagint?

 

The great problem

 

There is in deed a great problem and it is just beginning. It is found in Hebrews 1:10-12. This is a quotation from Psalm 102 and if we put them in context, it becomes clear that they are addressed to the Father YEHOWAH, the God of Israel, and not to His Son.

 

Consider the context:

Young's Literal Translation

Do Not Hide Your Face From Me

1. A Prayer of the afflicted when he is feeble, and before Jehovah poureth out his plaint. O Jehovah, hear my prayer, yea, my cry to Thee cometh.

2. Hide not Thou Thy face from me, In a day of mine adversity, Incline unto me Thine ear, In the day I call, haste, answer me.

3. For consumed in smoke have been my days, And my bones as a firebrand have burned.

4. Smitten as the herb, and withered, is my heart, For I have forgotten to eat my bread.

5. From the voice of my sighing Hath my bone cleaved to my flesh.

6. I have been like to a pelican of the wilderness, I have been as an owl

of the dry places.

7. I have watched, and I am As a bird alone on the roof.

8. All the day mine enemies reproached me, Those mad at me have sworn against me.

9. Because ashes as bread I have eaten, And my drink with weeping have mingled,

10. From Thine indignation and Thy wrath, For Thou hast lifted me up,

And dost cast me down.

11. My days as a shadow [are] stretched out, And I — as the herb I am

withered.

12. And Thou, O Jehovah, to the age abidest, And Thy memorial to all

generations.

13. Thou — Thou risest — Thou pitiest Zion, For the time to favour her,

For the appointed time hath come.

14. For Thy servants have been pleased with her stones, And her dust

they favour.

15. And nations fear the name of Jehovah, And all kings of the earth Thine honour,

16. For Jehovah hath builded Zion, He hath been seen in His honour,

17. He turned unto the prayer of the destitute, And He hath not despised

their prayer.

18. This is written for a later generation, And the people created do praise Jah.

19. For He hath looked From the high place of His sanctuary. Jehovah

from heaven unto earth looked attentively,

20. To hear the groan of the prisoner, To loose sons of death,

21. To declare in Zion the name of Jehovah, And His praise in Jerusalem,

22. In the peoples being gathered together, And the kingdoms — to serve Jehovah.

23. He hath humbled in the way my power, He hath shortened my days. 24. I say, ‘My God, take me not up in the midst of my days,’ Through all

generations [are] Thine years.

25. Beforetime the earth Thou didst found, And the work of Thy hands [are] the heavens.

26. They — They perish, and Thou remainest, And all of them as a garment become old, As clothing Thou changest them, And they are changed.

27. And Thou [art] the same, and Thine years are not finished.

28. The sons of Thy servants do continue, And their seed before Thee is

established!

 

The question is: why the Son is called "God" in Hebrews 1:8, and the

Creator in Hebrew 1:10, if the Father is the God and the Creator in the message of the Bible?

 

Some say that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is called God in Hebrews 1:8 where it reads, "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'" Similarly, according to them, the Son is referred to as the Creator in Hebrews 1:10 where it reads: "And, You, Lord (the Son), laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;" but these things could only be true on one essential condition, to have been thus formulated in the original epistle to the Hebrews.

 

But were they really so? This question arises, because towards the end

of the first century AD, there appeared some turbulent sects.  These sects held different strange ideas, and they falsified the Holy Scriptures in order to put forth their own ideas.  They created a problem with the propagation of a triune god, a god with three faces, three in one.

 

These sects did their best to adjust the Scriptures to match their ideas.

Let's see again how these ideas render, in their doctrine:

“The moment I thought about them, behold, the heavens opened, all the

creature beneath the sky lit up, and the world shook. I was scared and,

here, I saw someone sitting next to me in the light. Looking, he seemed

to be someone old. Then he changed his appearance to a young man. Not that there were more faces in front of me, but inside the light, there was a face with more faces. These faces were visible to each other, and the face had three faces.” {Apocryphon of John}

The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocryphon of John, is a second-century forgery, made by the Gnostic proto-Trinitarians.

 

This book is about these Gnostic Christians: who they were, their school of thought, and the conspiracies they were engaged in against the true message of the Bible. I wrote this book in order to raise public awareness about the importance of a general revision of the Bible, coming out of the unfair stereotypes taken from the Gnostics, that have been taught for so long.

 

The unknown Council of Antioch, in 267 A.D and it’s decision

 

Long before the Council of Nicaea (325) there was the Council of Antioch, in 267 A.D. At this council the doctrine of the trinity proposed by Sabellius was discussed. This Council is unknown and many do not know what decisions were made there. It is astonishing that what was proposed many years later at Nicaea, was also proposed at this council, but was rejected. The Greek term "homoousios" favored by Sabellius and others, but rejected at Antioch, ironically, was later favored at the Council of Nicaea.

 

Sabellius was a third-century theologian. His Trinitarian theology is identical to the one we read in the Apocryphon of John, so the question arises whether he or one of his disciples is the author of this falsehood. Many did not know his excommunication from 220 at Rome and as Sabellius' theology became popular, a Council examining this teaching was convened in Antioch in 267 AD.

 

At the Council of Antioch in 267 the church rejected Sabellius and his formula that Jesus is homo-ousios with the Father.  Homo-ouios means in Sabellius view “of the same essence, substance, or being,” so if the Father and Son is the same being, God died at the cross,  which the Synod of Antioch refused to admit and declared the idea of Sabelius gnostic (heretic).

(Sproul, R.C.; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology; Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; copyright 1997; p. 81)

 

After the Sabellian proto-trinitarian gnostic party loses the battle in the Council of Antioch (267), that is, the Father and the Son is the same being - because of the Scriptures held by some of the Christian leaders, most still unchanged – the Sabellians began the offensive of bringing the text of the Scriptures on their side, falsifying the text, where it was clearly against their conceptions. The Sabellians believed that they were not well enough understood at the Council of Antioch and they cast this guilt upon the Scriptures held by their opponents, which they considered edited (forged). With this suspicion in mind, they set out on a counter-offensive, modifying the Scriptures that disadvantaged them in the discussions. Thus began a crusade of counterfeits or so-called corrections, with many involved. Indeed, the church had declined certain corrupt texts by the Marcionite Gnostics, whose congregations were flourishing, but the Sabellians saw something wrong in this, as they were not clear about who the Marcionites really were. They deceived themselves into believing that the Marcionite texts were correct.

 

What many fail to realize today is that some documents of the New Testament in some places have been edited, by Marcionites and Sabellians, to confirm the doctrines of their branches. And not only these documents but also other Christian documents. 

 

The noted Church Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quotes the Church Father Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria in the third century (Hist. Eccl.,

Bk. 4. 23), who reports that his own epistles had been tampered with by the

Gnostic party:

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts".

 

In the book The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, we find another proof, of what happened in that ancient time, quoting Gaius, presbyter of Rome in the second and first half of the third century:

"Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures,

alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of

them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect

their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find

that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree

with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because

their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not

consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed".

 

Here is the model they followed, the Gnostic party wrote so many copies that they became more abundant than the authentic copies, the true copies of the Scriptures.  Then the forged copies became more accessible to the uninitiated public, than the authentic ones.

 

Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed

errors were made by negligence, but also three intentional tricks were

made.

 

About the tricks made in the text:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

 

Dr. F H The Scrivener text critic writes:

"In the second century, we see too many attempts to change the text of Scripture, some only recklessly, others proven to be dishonest."

 

Scrivener states that "this is no less true, though it sounds paradoxical that the worst mistakes the New Testament has ever been made were originally made within 100 years after the (New Testament) was made, and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers , and throughout the West, part of the Syrian Church used "inferior manuscripts. (FHA Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism).

 

Dr. FH Scrivener text critic noted two kind of scribes who altered the text:

"recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that the first

100 years was the WORST TIME of the manuscripts.

 

Ernest Cadman Colwell, Which is the Best New Testament Text ?, p. 119: "The first two centuries witnessed a large number of (different text)

variations known to scholars today. Most (different text) versions of New

Testament manuscripts, I believe they did it consciously."

 

The testimony of Origen, third century: "It is a fact revealed today that

there is a GREAT VARIETY among the manuscripts, either because of

the carelessness of the scribes, or because of the outrageous daring of

the people who copied..." Origen, Contra Celsum

 

This rout was due to the fact that in the second century the Gnostic Christian rival groups reached a dozen of sects, each making their own

canon and their own favorite text (Raoul Vaneigem, The Resistance to

Christianity.The Heresies at the Origins of the18thCentury).

 

The Codex Sinaiticus markings and the real text of Matthew 28:18-19

 

The real text of Matthew 28:18-19?

 

In the Codex Sinaiticus - considered to be the second oldest complete Bible in the world, after the Codex Vaticanus Graecus - the phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is placed between two points. The dots are placed in the middle of the letter, which shows a special mark, made by a scribe. This is how the scribes marked the problematic places, while copying the texts.

 

Before tackling the issue of the forgery in Hebrews chapter 1, we will show the falsification of the text in Matthew 28:18-19 which before the forgery reads as follows:

 

18 And Jesus, approaching, spoke unto them, saying, All authority was given to me in heaven and on earth. As my Father sent me, I also send you:

19 Go and make disciples of all nations in my name,

20 Teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you! And, behold, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world.

 

Important notes

 

The text of Shem Tob version omits "in Galilee" (Matthew 28:7), which shows that originally, the angel did not refer to walking in Galilee, but only promised a meeting with Jesus. Then, Christ remembers Galilee (Matthew 28:10), but it is rather a sort of walking, a sort of going to a common meeting. Unfortunately, the early translators of the Hebrew autograph or Aramaic translation, at that time, did not understand what the reference was, and for this reason we now have texts in Matthew 28 which contradict the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Luke 24:49, according to which the disciples had to stay in Jerusalem until the outpouring of the holy spirit.

 

In the Aramaic text of Matthew 28:18 exist the phrase "As my Father hath sent me, I also send you”, deleted later or omitted from the Greek translation, typical for heretic scribes. This was not an isolated case, but habitual, they deleted, changed or mixed the text for doctrinal reasons.

          

The verse in Matthew 28:19 is taken in accordance with the Bible of the erudite bishop Lucian of Antioch (Christian martyr who lived in the third-fourth century), inherited by his disciple Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and quoted before the Council of Nicea. Eusebius of Cesarea and Aprahates, two bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and others quotes this verse differently.

 

Unfortunately, some Bible manuscripts have missing pages, such as the last page of the Gospel of Matthew. The missing pages, why here?

 

This is another argument in support of the hypothesis of falsification.

 

"In the only Codex (version) in which we would have kept an older version, namely the Syrian Sinaiticus version and in the oldest Latin manuscript, the pages containing the end of Matthew are missing." (F.C. Conybeare).

 

Unfortunately, the same fate had the Gothic Bible of the Bishop of the Goths, Wulfila, does not contain the last chapter of Matthew, and as the first of John would have expected. Who made these pages disappear from old codices and why?

 

The missing text “As my Father sent me, I also send you”

 

Another great omission, another argument for support the hypothesis of falsification.

 

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. As my Father sent me, I also send you (the Aramaic text, omitted from the Greek):

19 Go and make disciples of all nations, (the Hebrew version, the Greek version including and "baptizing" them) in my name (This kind of verse is taken according to the old Hebrew edition quoted by Rabbi Shem Tob of fourteenth-century Spain), and from the Bible of the non-Trinitarian bishop the scholar Lucian of Antioch (Christian martyr who lived in the III-IV century). This was inherited by his disciple Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, and quoted before the Council of Nicaea Eusebius of Caesarea and Aprahates of Syria, two bishops present at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but others also quote this verse differently from what we have today.),

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

 

The Christian Ordinances, Chapter X,

Origin of the Trine Immersion

 

This contains a very interesting historical note on Matthew 28:19.

 

One of the authors who wrote about the transformation of the text in Matthew 28:19 is the Baptist Christian Henry Forney (1829-1926). He wrote The History of the Church of God in the United States (1914). In 1883 he wrote The Christian Ordinances, and in Chapter X appears Origin of the Trine Immersion. He and other authors say that the "long baptismal formula" is a change from the original baptism that was performed only in the name of the Lord Jesus and that it spread from Asia to Africa and Europe. It was not known until a certain Christian of Sicilian origin, Pantaneus, brought it from his Asian tour to Alexandria (Cairo, Africa), where he had settled. Here he formed a Christian school, from where this form of baptism spread further.

 

Pantaneus excelled in the struggle against Gnosticism, but it can be seen that in some respects he was influenced by them. That is, it was contaminated, it was gnosticized to some extent.

Gnostics were the first trinitarians.

 

From here, from this school, this kind of baptism spread to North Africa and Europe, not with little resistance, for example bishop Stephen of Rome (third century) agreeing with those who baptized only in the name of Jesus. Pope of Rome, Pelagius (VI century), complained that there were still many Christians who were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

A significant number of scholars today admit that the original baptism was only in the name of the Lord Jesus. Yet why do we not have at least one biblical copy of this form other than a 14th-century manuscript? Take a close look at the images of the Inquisition, where the old Bibles were burned with their owners, and you can answer for yourself.

 

Statements of history and historians:

 

The most important historical sources confirm that the Christian church did not use a threefold name as a baptismal formula but invoked the Name of Jesus until the third century. Encyclopedia of Religions and Ethics (1951) vol. II, pp. 384, 389:

 

The formula used was "in the name of Jesus Christ" or phrases synonymous with it; there is no testimony regarding the three name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts of the Apostles, was the simple immersion in water, the use of the Name of Jesus and the laying on of hands. To these was added, in a time that cannot be established exactly, the thee name (Justin)”.

 

Explanatory Bible Dictionary (1962), vol. I, p. 351: "Evidence… Suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the triune name, but in the Name of Jesus Christ or in the Name of the Lord Jesus."

 

Otto Heick, a renowned Christian historian (1947), p. 58: "The Trinitarian formula of baptism" took the place of the old formula of baptism "in the name of Jesus."

 

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898), vol. I, p. 241: "The original name of the words was" in the name of Jesus Christ "or" the Lord Jesus." Baptism in the name of the Trinity was a subsequent change."

 

Williston Walker, a Christian Church Historian (1947), p. 58 The Trinitarian Baptism Formula" Took the place of the Old Baptism „in the Name of Christ"

 

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament testifies only to the baptism in the Name of Jesus… which was practiced until the third century"

 

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), p. 53: "People were first baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

 

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is only normal to conclude that baptism was originally administered" in the name of Jesus Christ, "or" in the name of the Lord Jesus. "This view is confirmed by the fact that the early forms of baptismal witness were singular and not tripled, as was the later belief.

 

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: The Trinitarian formula and diving three times was not a uniform practice from the beginning… Baptism in the Name of Jesus is the New Testament formula. In the third century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen declared it valid, opposing Cyprian of Carthage.

 

A brief reconstruction of what happened:

 

In the first and second centuries, a pseudo-Christian Jewish sect with Gnostic tendencies developed, called "Nazoreans" or "Nazarenes". In fact, they came to Christianity from a Jewish sect of the same name, close to the Essene ideas. When they became Christians, they came up with their own ideas, unifying their ideas with those of the Christians. They had an apocryphal gospel, called the Gospel of the Nazarenes or the Gospel of the Jews. It was a harmony of the four existing gospels, a kind of compilation of them, which included the specific doctrines of this heretical group. Outside of Judea, they were also known as encratites. They rejected the writings of the apostle Paul althogether. They did not eat meat, did not marry, did not drink wine, believed in the doctrine of the trinity and immortality of souls, and practiced triple baptism. From this syncretistic gospel the idea of threefold baptism spread to Rome, through Justin the Martyr, and to the Middle East through Tatian, to northwestern India. Justin and Tatian were the promoters of this sect. Pantaneus of Alexandria, Egypt, an eminent Christian, former Stoic philosopher, was called by anxious leaders from Antioch and sent on a mediation tour with Gnostic sects or a tendency toward Gnosticism to return them from the heretical wandering, back to the authentic Christian values. He succeeded in part, but in part he allowed himself to be contaminated by this group of Nazarenes and brought back to Alexandria certain doctrines of the above-mentioned group, such as the immortality of souls, the trinity, and the threefold baptism. From here it spread throughout North Africa, and especially to Carthage, which became a bastion and outpost of these doctrines toward Europe.