Matt. 28:19 changed??

[luvmyfamily]

Anyone know about this? This is the first I had heard of it. It talks about Matt. 28:19 being totally changed to what we know, to make a trinitarian formula.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

Also pay attention to verse 9 in this and compare it with your own Bible. Very interesting stuff.

[searching]

Consider the source.

[Bro.Sam]

Quite a few years ago, like in the nineteen sixties, Bro. Gordon Magee put out some publications called R.A.C.E. That stood for Restored Apostolic Church Evangel. They came from Houston, TX where Bro. Magee had moved from Ireland. I think he had married Bro. Kidson's daughter but I'm not sure about that. I had first heard of Bro. Magee when he was in Ireland associated with a Oneness group calle The Churches of God of Ireland. I heard him speak at Midway Tabernacle in St. Paul,MN when I was attending the Apostolic Bible School there in 1956/1957. For a while I received a magazine from the Irish group some time in the late nineteen fifties or early sixties. Bro. Magee was either in the UPC or in fellowship with the UPC for a while. He wrote a book titled, "Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?" which was (maybe still is) available from the UPC publishing house. Then I got three copies of R.A.C.E. from Houston, TX. One copy was a reprint of Bro. John Paterson's book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" which was written back in 1920. Another was a teaching on Elijah and the third was "Did Jesus Ever Speak the Words Attibuted to Him in Matthew 28:19?" In it he quoted from some source (don't remember which) that led him to believe that Jesus originally said, "baptizing them in my name" instead of "baptizing them in the name of the FS&HG." Over the years others have also stated that. I don't know if there is any truth to that or not. I'm always suspicious of someone who says our Bible is wrong when it disagrees with something they believe.

[luvmyfamily]

Well I didn't say I necessarily believed it...just that it was interesting. It may be true, and it may not. I wouldn't put it past the scribes and scholars to insert that, however. Either way, I know what I believe, because the rest of scripture says exactly who God is and what we are to do. I will say, however, that if it IS true that those words were added, and the simpler version were the true account, it would have made things much clearer and indisputable as to how we should baptize! The cause of confusion wouldn't be there.

Maybe we will never know for absolute certainty whether it's true or not.

[JesusIsAll]

As someone said "consider the source", a trinity translated bible, from trinity translated Greek texts, from some that have been to trinity schools.
Does anyone know of an English bible translation that is not trinity biased? The only one I am aware of is the JWs NWT, but I don't trust it. ANYONE?

[coadie]

"There is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!"
http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm
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."

[krazeeboi]

While we really don't have any hard and fast evidence that would indicate an interpolation of Matthew 28:19 and while I actually believe that the wording was originally of a Christocentric nature, I have absolutely no problem with the wording as is.

[Bro.Sam]

As someone said "consider the source", a trinity translated bible, from trinity translated Greek texts, from some that have been to trinity schools.
Does anyone know of an English bible translation that is not trinity biased? The only one I am aware of is the JWs NWT, but I don't trust it. ANYONE?

I would not trust the NW translation at all.
It is provided by JW's for JW's.

Speaking of not trusting a Bible. The newer versions like NIV, NLT, etc are based on some texts that are questionable and are provided by some people that are questionable. I'm not advocating KJV only but some time you might want to read material about the background of the texts used in newer translations vs what is known as the textus receptus or received text.

[Psalm16:11]

I once wondered that too, but then I realized that Matt 28:19 says baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Well, what is that NAME! The NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is JESUS! So, we dont repeat His commands, we fulfil them by baptizing like Acts 2:38,in the NAME of Jesus! So, even if it was changed, look what God did! It is a Oneness scripture in my opinion!:tup:

[Brother Price]

I look at it like this. If the Lord of all creation did not want that scripture in there, it would not be there. Matthew 28:19 is a Oneness scripture, because calls us to use one name.

[SueG]

Exactly. It's simple grammar. Name is in the singular. Father, son and Holy Ghost are titles. Just like any man could be a father, or as son, or a brother, but he has only one name. Nowhere in the book of Acts do we see the Apostles using the titles to baptize, but only the one Name, Jesus. I believe they knew what they were doing.

[christian]

Wheter or MATT.28:19 was tampered it or not,we can read in the book of Acts and see how the early church baptized good enuff says this redneck.

[coadie]

Wheter or MATT.28:19 was tampered it or not,we can read in the book of Acts and see how the early church baptized good enuff says this redneck.
The early church did not have it in writing. They did as they were told.

We have it in writing and most churches can't do it like the church did it in Acts. We also forget that Rome says they have the authority to change scripture and after it is changed it must be obeyed.

[BrotherRDHutch]

Hey I believe its somewhat true because most trinitarians don't really want truth. Many of them are unteachable and will not even try to hear the truth. They're a mess!

[searching]

Hey I believe its somewhat true because most trinitarians don't really want truth. Many of them are unteachable and will not even try to hear the truth. They're a mess!

If they believe they already have the truth, why would they want to hear what you have to say?

You believe you have truth, don't you? Would you listen to someone else who claims to have a different truth than you do? Why not?

Well, they have the same reasons.

Instead of seeing them as unteachable let's show them the truth in love.

[BrotherEastman]

If they believe they already have the truth, why would they want to hear what you have to say?

You believe you have truth, don't you? Would you listen to someone else who claims to have a different truth than you do? Why not?

Well, they have the same reasons.

Instead of seeing them as unteachable let's show them the truth in love.
The only problem with that is, it doesn't matter how much love you show them, they will defend what they think is the truth. Its like what jesus said "blind leading the blind".

[warrior]

The same thing applies to us as Apostolics. We are not any different in feeling that we are already in the truth. They aren't unteacable. They feel like thay have it already so why listen to you. Apostolics are of the same mindset. We are always looking for ways to beat trinitarians down. It comes out in our witness. Let us stop otherwise there will be no winning.

[searching]

The only problem with that is, it doesn't matter how much love you show them, they will defend what they think is the truth. Its like what jesus said "blind leading the blind".

Actually, if they see something in you that's lacking in them, they will recognize it for what it is. I've seen it happen time and time again. My best friend's husband was strict in the trinitarian doctrine. I used to talk to him about Jesus' name issues and he wouldn't see it. He was studying to be a minister.

His wife attended an Apostolic church when she was a kid, and she believed the doctrine even though she no longer attended church. She couldn't make him see either, but we didn't pound it into him. We showed him the love of God and we prayed for him.

Today he is mightily used of God and is seeking his license in the UPC. He wants to pastor someday and is used in the gifts.

If God can change my friend's mind, He can get through to anyone.

But just like you are grounded in your truth, understand that they are grounded in their truth as well. To shake our heads and feel that it's the blind leading the blind isn't accurate unless you feel that it's ok when they feel that way about you and your truth.

Understanding one another is key.

[evalafon]

As a former trinitarian (48+ yrs), I vigourously defended my beliefs. Then, one day I began to entertain this question - What did Jesus imply when He said except ye become as little children ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven? The more I pondered the significance of this question the more I came to the realization that, if I was ever going to ascertain truth beyond the shadow of any doubt, it would necessitate the setting aside, at least temporarily, of everything I had been embracing as truth, so that I might objectively consider the accusations proclaimed by Oneness Apostolic Pentecostalism that my tenaciously held beliefs were amiss. Admittedly, this was not an easy task to undertake, yet one which I felt to be absolutely essential if truth were to triumph!

One of the very first things I came to recognize following my conversion to the OAP doctrine of salvation (which, of course, includes immersion in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus"), was the startling realization that it was approximately 24-28 years following the event of Peter's first sermon, before the first book of the New Testament would be written - and it was not Matthew's gospel account, rather Mark's. So, how did the apostles conduct water baptism PRIOR to the publication of Matthew's gospel? None other than in the manner depicted through Luke's writings within that singular book entitled the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES!

Whether or not one chooses to omit the phrase "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," the fact still remains that the commandement of our Lord was to conduct this activity under the authority of a NAME, which is none than Jesus!

When I am confronted with arguments by trinitarians concerning this matter, I always ask them this question - When was the gospel of Matthew written, and under what authority were converts baptized prior to its publication? The ONLY possible scriptural-based answer is simply that it was ALWAYS done "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

[JesusIsAll]

The problem IS the purity of the textus receptus. The trinity bias, inserted passages, etc. is part of what we find when we read material about the background of the textus receptus.
The JW NWT is the only non trinity biased translation I know of, any others?

[GMB]

As a former trinitarian (48+ yrs), I vigourously defended my beliefs. Then, one day I began to entertain this question - What did Jesus imply when He said except ye become as little children ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven? The more I pondered the significance of this question the more I came to the realization that, if I was ever going to ascertain truth beyond the shadow of any doubt, it would necessitate the setting aside, at least temporarily, of everything I had been embracing as truth, so that I might objectively consider the accusations proclaimed by Oneness Apostolic Pentecostalism that my tenaciously held beliefs were amiss. Admittedly, this was not an easy task to undertake, yet one which I felt to be absolutely essential if truth were to triumph!

One of the very first things I came to recognize following my conversion to the OAP doctrine of salvation (which, of course, includes immersion in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus"), was the startling realization that it was approximately 24-28 years following the event of Peter's first sermon, before the first book of the New Testament would be written - and it was not Matthew's gospel account, rather Mark's. So, how did the apostles conduct water baptism PRIOR to the publication of Matthew's gospel? None other than in the manner depicted through Luke's writings within that singular book entitled the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES!

Whether or not one chooses to omit the phrase "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," the fact still remains that the commandement of our Lord was to conduct this activity under the authority of a NAME, which is none than Jesus!

When I am confronted with arguments by trinitarians concerning this matter, I always ask them this question - When was the gospel of Matthew written, and under what authority were converts baptized prior to its publication? The ONLY possible scriptural-based answer is simply that it was ALWAYS done "in the name of the Lord Jesus."


Great post!

[Mordocai]

"There is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!"
http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm
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."

The Catholic Encyclopedia is online at www.newadvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org) and the entry for baptism is at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
I couldn't find anywhere it saying that the Catholic Church changed the formula. Do you have a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia in book form?

God's Blessings,
Mordocai

[Mordocai]

Also found another online copy (through wikipedia, not exactly accurate always but its a copy nonetheless lol)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Baptism
and here's the main hub http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29
This one too does not say that the formular for baptism was changed from Jesus only to a Trinitarian formula after the 2nd century.

[John Atkinson]

My Big Bold Question on the whole Matthew 28:19 changed thing is simply this:

Do we really want to go there?

Item A: On the one hand we say the Bible is the word of God.

Item B: Then we say the Word of God is infallible.

Item C: Then we say but people changed it.

Item D: Then we say that they changed it away from a meaning, which curiously enough supports our doctrinal position.

:wah: <--- that would be the face I would make on the other end listening to the above.

Mathew 28:19 supports Acts 2:38 - Oneness just like it is, like one preacher said "If you squeeze Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38 pops out!"

[yael]

Thank you Brother Atkinson - lets not go down that road.
By the time we are finished - there wont be much of the bible left.

But I like that profound statement regarding the two scriptures. Very cute.

[Bartholomew]

Brother John, do you believe 1john 5:7 to be authentic? or are you also not willing to go down that road?

[luvmyfamily]

My Big Bold Question on the whole Matthew 28:19 changed thing is simply this:

Do we really want to go there?

Item A: On the one hand we say the Bible is the word of God.

Item B: Then we say the Word of God is infallible.

Item C: Then we say but people changed it.

Item D: Then we say that they changed it away from a meaning, which curiously enough supports our doctrinal position.

:wah: <--- that would be the face I would make on the other end listening to the above.

Mathew 28:19 supports Acts 2:38 - Oneness just like it is, like one preacher said "If you squeeze Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38 pops out!"


Good point, Bro. I had been thinking the same things recently. But i still struggle. But is the true Bible what was put down for King James? Or is the true Bible what the apostles put down nearly 2000 years ago?

The WORD of God IS infallible...because as John says in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God." Now THAT"S the Word of God. It is men who have a tendency to write things down which God did not say, and call it "scripture". But, I guess it has worked for the past 2000 years to bring people to Christ. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Bible. There is no book I hold more dear. I live by it. It just irks me when I discover that someone has done something to change it (i.e., JW NWT, or Book of Mormon, or Matt. 28:19, etc.).

[Bartholomew]

The WORD of God IS infallible...because as John says in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God." Now THAT"S the Word of God. It is men who have a tendency to write things down which God did not say, and call it "scripture". But, I guess it has worked for the past 2000 years to bring people to Christ. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Bible. There is no book I hold more dear. I live by it. It just irks me when I discover that someone has done something to change it (i.e., JW NWT, or Book of Mormon, or Matt. 28:19, etc.).

exactly my point, hence my question about 1 john 5:7

[searching]

If we question one scripture, what keeps us from questioning them all?

[John Atkinson]

If we question one scripture, what keeps us from questioning them all?
My point exactly, which would be why an answer on 1 John 5:7 won't be forthcoming from me...

[krazeeboi]

1 John 5:7 does not contradict the rest of biblical teaching on theology proper. It's interesting that it says that the three in heaven who bear record are the Father, the Word (instead of the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

Doesn't do any damage to Oneness theology whatsoever.

[Bartholomew]

1 John 5:7 does not contradict the rest of biblical teaching on theology proper. It's interesting that it says that the three in heaven who bear record are the Father, the Word (instead of the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

Doesn't do any damage to Oneness theology whatsoever.

neither does Matt28:19 does any damage to the oneness message, but thats not the point.

The point is, 1 john 5:7 is only to be found in translations who are based on the greek text made available by Erasmus know as the texus receptus.
Its not found in any of the greek manuscripts prior to 12century. one of those translations is the KJV.
So I ask do you accept this to be also part of the original, inspired word of God? if yes, why? what if you are a niv reader, which doesn't have that vers.

[Bro.Sam]

...
So I ask do you accept this to be also part of the original, inspired word of God? if yes, why? what if you are a niv reader, which doesn't have that vers.

NIV is based on manuscripts from Alexandrian gnostics and one which was found in a trash bin.

[Banditt]

neither does Matt28:19 does any damage to the oneness message, but thats not the point.

The point is, 1 john 5:7 is only to be found in translations who are based on the greek text made available by Erasmus know as the texus receptus.
Its not found in any of the greek manuscripts prior to 12century. one of those translations is the KJV.
So I ask do you accept this to be also part of the original, inspired word of God? if yes, why? what if you are a niv reader, which doesn't have that vers.

I like KJV the best but that is because that is what I know & I am used to.

No, I do not accept it as original because it is not original. I would rather be honest with people than to lie to them or sound like a dufus. After writings get to be so old people do as they please with them, sacred or not. A good example of that is Bush writing his own personal Constitution. I also do not believe the Bible is the only writings inspired by God. There have been many writings, paintings & art, poetry, books, hymns & music written that have been inspired by God over the last 2,000 years.





"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."

Matt 28:19 is obvious to me it & there is enough evidence to convince me of it being changed. along with the latter part of the last chapter in Mark, 1John 5:7, shining star & lucifer...& a handful of other scriptures & words edited, added, deleted, of course depending on what version you prefer & whatever agenda it is someone feels they need to prove.

Do I care or does it bother me?
No.

[adampastor]

I like KJV the best but that is because that is what I know & I am used to.

No, I do not accept [1 John 5.7] as original because it is not original. I would rather be honest with people than to lie to them or sound like a dufus.

My sentiments exactly!!

[Bartholomew]

NIV is based on manuscripts from Alexandrian gnostics and one which was found in a trash bin.

Which is prolly what you will hear from KJV onlyiest. Not saying you are one, but give me some more proof or links plz.

[Bro.Sam]

Which is prolly what you will hear from KJV onlyiest. Not saying you are one, but give me some more proof or links plz.

can't give any proof
have no links right now.

I'm not a KJV only person.
However, over time I have read that the texts which differ from the textus receptus are from 2 places. One was found in a trash bin in a monastery. The others are from Alexandria which was supposedly notorious for gnostic teachings.

[TheLayman]

This is what happens when your belief is simply anti-doctrine and you try to force the anti-doctrine onto Scripture. But this is yet another example of what I’m talking about which is, if you feel this way about your Bible go throw it away, it’s worthless. And giving this nonsensical stuff about Matthew 28:19 even a “maybe” just pointlessly challenges the integrity of Scripture.

Do you realize that in that whole long Pastor Ploughman expose there is not one piece of evidence against Matthew 28:19, not one!? There is not one variant reading of Matthew 28:19, not one, and it most certainly is in the early manuscripts. To point to a manuscript and say that it is missing (even if it is the case) is not unusual since many of the oldest are in fragments.

I find it interesting how carefully this propaganda piece is worded. For example, “So that we have no MS. earlier than the 4th century, and in the case of these two earlier versions the end page of Matthew has been destroyed? I hope he means in earlier “fragments.” I hope you all don’t think that archeologists are just pulling Greek New Testaments out of caves somewhere. And if he means fragments, perhaps he is talking about P45? This is what P45 contains of Matthew: (Matt. 20:24-32, 21:13-19, 25:41-26:39). There’s not a great deal there is there? Even the writer admits: “The two earliest MSS. extant (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), written in the 4th century, both include the end of Matthew also contain the threefold name. ‘In all extant MSS, ...the text is found in the traditional form (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).’" So again, Matthew 28:19 most certainly is in early manuscripts and once again, there is not one variant reading in all the manuscripts of Matthew 28:19.

The “Plougman paper” continues :

In these circumstances we must turn to the early quotations, styled the "Patristic Writings" and examine their evidence, to see how they quoted Matthew 28:19, and this we will proceed to do.

Let’s turn to the “Patristic Writings” as the author suggests.

With regard to Eusebius of Caesarea, there are no mysterious books wherein Eusebius calls into question Matthew 28:19. The author himself admits that Eusebius quotes Matt. 28:19 “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” What’s more is that the writer tells you not to care about the theology of the writers (unless he thinks they agree with him). Perhaps because Eusebius was thought to be a sympathizer to the Arians and called Athanasius a heretic accusing him of being … are you ready, a modalist (which was rather a common charge of Arians regarding Trinitarians, even to this day).

And what of others. Well the Didache and Justin Martyr certainly allude to the passage directing baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (indeed this is the “Lord’s baptism” in these writings). But what of others who lived well before Eusebius? Did they actually quote the passage? Well, yes they did, and here is a quick sampling:

“Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” By this He showed that whoever omits any of these three, fails in glorifying God perfectly. (Hippolytus, c. 205)

For the law of Baptism was enjoined and its ritual prescribed. "Go," he says, "teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." (Tertullian, c. 200)

He commands them to baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—not into a unipersonal God. (Tertullian, c. 213)

“Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. (Cyprian, c 250)

I thought those would be a nice sampling of quotes since Eusebius wasn’t even born until 260 A.D. I hope my point is obvious. Not only did Eusebius quote Matthew 28:19 correctly and as it appears in your Bible, but Ante-Nicene Fathers were quoting it so long before he was even born that Eusebius probably only got to read copies of copies of the ones being quoted by the time he was old enough to read. So, not that there was any need to consult the “Patristic Writings” in this case since the manuscript evidence is overwhelming, but since we have, the evidence from the “Patristic Writings” was also overwhelming before Eusebius was born (I wonder how the author missed that).

At the beginning of his article we find this:

“It is now known, and without the slightest uncertainty, that the verses at 1John 5:7-8 in the AV & KJV contain spurious scripture:

Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three witnesses 1John 5:7-8 shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity. ...(the spurious words) are now abandoned by all authorities except the Pope of Rome. By consequence the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19 (F.C. Conybeare)."

Incidentally, Conybeare is no friend of Christianity but then why would you expect more considering the source? At any rate several problems should be noticeable to anyone here. First, there is no similarity between the textual criticism of 1John 5:7 and the absolute absence of any Textual criticism of Matthew 28:19 (a rather poor attempt to associate the two). Incidentally, it was Biblical scholars, historians, and textual experts that said that 1John 5:7 was spurious, there would be no reason for them to protect Matthew 28:19. There is simply and absolutely no evidence against Matthew 28:19, no more than the rest of Matthew anyway.

Additionally, see the straw man arguments for the ignorant, i.e. that the Scriptural evidence for the Trinity is based on 1John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19? While both passages support the Trinity, I’m afraid that the Doctrine of the Trinity is based on much, much more than these two passages. In fact, such an assertion is absolutely laughable in that the Doctrine of the Trinity is based on everything the New Testament says concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Surely anyone who has discussed the nature of God with a knowledgeable Trinitarian at any length would laugh at the idea that “the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19.”

My question is: why would anyone who supposedly loves the Word of God bring it into question unnecessarily. As I’ve stated above in some detail, there is no evidence against Matthew 28:19. But I know that even if you know that it is the inspired Word of God, you aren’t going to change your theology because of it. Indeed, even if what I’ve written convinces you to be very careful calling the Word of God into question, I don’t believe I’ve changed your theology. So again my question is: what would anyone so carelessly criticize the Word of God, and why would anyone want to perpetuate such nonsense.

When you start saying something in the Word of God doesn’t belong there you aren’t taking issue with me or my beliefs, you are in fact taking issue with what purports to be the Word of God. If you say something in Scripture is wrong or a lie you don’t get to blame that on someone else, you will be accountable for your own words. So unless you really know what you’re talking about I personally think a person would be wise to pause and consider the ramifications and importance of being critical of what purports to be the Word of God and your reasons for doing so. With regard to Matthew 28:19, if you believe that this passage is false and was corrupted in spite of the complete lack of evidence for believing this and in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence for it my opinion is that you should go throw your Bible away right now. It should be worthless to you. In spite of real evidence, real history, and real critical analysis, apparently any and all the text could have been corrupted by this great conspiracy of Trinitarians. Talk about people that could keep a secret eh? You would think if they were going to corrupt the text without anyone knowing they would have done a much better job and then ceased their theological arguments with one another. In short, when you bring a passage such as Matthew 28:19 in disrepute, you bring all of Scripture into disrepute in the eyes of unbelievers.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[zealwriter]

I once wondered that too, but then I realized that Matt 28:19 says baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Well, what is that NAME! The NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is JESUS! So, we dont repeat His commands, we fulfil them by baptizing like Acts 2:38,in the NAME of Jesus! So, even if it was changed, look what God did! It is a Oneness scripture in my opinion!:tup:

Exactly Psalm' and definitely you Layman...yes, I wrote a pamphlet explaining this very concept that you're speaking on about 13 years ago, It was based on "in THE NAME...". The word "the" being a definite article means one in particular. So then the scripture in Matthew calls for one name in particular that represents GOD as He is a Father (Creator), Son (Savior) and Holy Ghost (Indweller). There's no need to consider this scripture to be of trinitarian influence, it's like I have been saying in other places here at GNC, the baptism formula is by revelation so why try and use that angle to win souls. It is a Oneness Scripture, exhale. :)

the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God...

[TheLayman]

Exactly Psalm' and definitely you Layman...yes, I wrote a pamphlet explaining this very concept that you're speaking on about 13 years ago, It was based on "in THE NAME...". The word "the" being a definite article means one in particular. So then the scripture in Matthew calls for one name in particular that represents GOD as He is a Father (Creator), Son (Savior) and Holy Ghost (Indweller). There's no need to consider this scripture to be of trinitarian influence, it's like I have been saying in other places here at GNC, the baptism formula is by revelation so why try and use that angle to win souls. It is a Oneness Scripture, exhale. :)

the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God...

Greetings Zealwriter:

Great. Maybe when you wrote the pamphlet explaining all of this you explained the difference in the meaning of the following grammatical constructions:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

In the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

After you do that your pamphlet would be even better in you backed up to Matthew 28:18.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matt 28:18) Then you could explain what a subject object distinction is, and that with regard to the “power” being “given” there was a giver and receiver (the verb is passive and Jesus is the receiver). Then when you get to 28:19 it will help if you explain the “therefore” (an old Bible study rule is: always explain wherefore the therefore is there for as it is a term of conclusion).

I’m not going to talk about baptism as it is against the rules and I have enough skillets on the stove as it is. However, if you write a real good pamphlet like that it might keep neophytes from jumping square in the middle of someone in debate and thinking they know it all only to get dismantled. It’s good you want to provide information, just make sure it’s good information and you have been honest and thorough. I’m glad we can agree to be careful when being critical of the Bible, God’s inspired word.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Great. Maybe when you wrote the pamphlet explaining all of this you explained the difference in the meaning of the following grammatical constructions:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

In the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

After you do that your pamphlet would be even better in you backed up to Matthew 28:18.


TLM,

I would like to know the grammar behind those three constructions, if you have the time. If not, do you have a good link in which you could direct me?

Thanks

[TheLayman]

TLM,

I would like to know the grammar behind those three constructions, if you have the time. If not, do you have a good link in which you could direct me?

Thanks

Hello Mizpeh:

You're like a kid in a candy store with questions (that's actually a compliment. Oh that everyone was so interested). As I said, doing that would violate the rules, I can assure you. I can't give you a link and it would take me some time to do and even more to answer questions. I'll look around and see if I have it on a word document somewhere (I've done it more than once but that may have been in the days before I saved anything). Remind me in a couple weeks if you haven't heard from (not only am I busy but I'm getting old, which means I have a lot to do I just can't remember what it is). But let me suggest this, ponder it, think about it, and work on the possible answers and possible solutions for awhile. It should be a fun exercise.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[Evangelist Paul]

My point exactly, which would be why an answer on 1 John 5:7 won't be forthcoming from me...

There will be a day when we will understand every scripture just as God intended it - in that day we will know as he knows for we will see him face to face. Hallelujah!!!

Until then we will have some very interesting discussions:photo:

[Praxeus]

Hi Folks,

Hmmm.. we discussed this fairly recently.
Please look at the links I will place below.

And as John Atkinson pointed out, Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:39 (and Acts 10 and 19) work together beautifully. Removing Matthew 28:19 is kicking out one of the pillars of oneness harmony, the fullness of Deity in the Lord Jesus Christ and the majesty and supremacy of His name.

And giving this nonsensical stuff about Matthew 28:19 even a “maybe” just pointlessly challenges the integrity of Scripture ... Do you realize that in that whole long Pastor Ploughman expose there is not one piece of evidence against Matthew 28:19, not one!? ... I find it interesting how carefully this propaganda piece is worded...Let’s turn to the “Patristic Writings” as the author suggests.... I thought those would be a nice sampling of quotes since Eusebius wasn’t even born until 260 A.D. I hope my point is obvious. ... if you believe that this passage is false and was corrupted in spite of the complete lack of evidence for believing this and in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence for it my opinion is that you should go throw your Bible away right now. It should be worthless to you. ... In short, when you bring a passage such as Matthew 28:19 in disrepute, you bring all of Scripture into disrepute in the eyes of unbelievers. Blessings, TheLaymanWhether Layman is Trinitarian or Oneness or what .. he is 100% right above.
In fact the full evidence against the Ploughman nonsense is even stronger than he indicates !

Here is a thread and posts to start.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218942&postcount=77
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218957&postcount=79
Matthew 28:19 - early church writer citations

Later on I was able to compile the additional information about Eusebius, the places where he uses the exact same wording as the verse in scripture. (About three separate times, as I recall.) The irony is that as apostolics we often say 'he was baptized in the name of the Lord' which is a full and proper and shorthand method of indicating the Bible baptism, with full knowledge and understanding of Matthew 28:19. And that is all that Eusebius did a number of cases, the idea of a Nicean conspiracy is basically disinformation. (Roger Pearse of www.tertullian.org has a good web page about Nicean conspiracy myths vis a vis the Bible text.)

Oh, the manuscript evidence is so overwhelming that the whole idea simply turns all concepts of Bible preservation on its head. Virtually every single Greek, Latin, Old Latin and Aramaic agree on the traditional phrase in Matthew 28:19.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

[Praxeus]

Hi Folks,

We could discuss the Johannine Comma as well. Many issues (compared to Matthew 28:19) are very different, the textual and historic evidence is definitely far more debatable (especially if you do not accept the Received Text). One can understand how simply 'counting manuscripts' could lead to a view that the Comma is not scripture, since the Comma largely dropped out of the Greek line, even the Byzantine line (as did, e.g. Acts 8:37). However the early support, starting from Cyprian and other ancient writers, and the Old Latin and Vulgate lines, and a fascinating comment in Jerome's Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, and the powerful evidence of the late 4th-century Council of Carthage and the internal evidence, all make for a very strong support for the Johannine Comma. And a lot will depend on your overall paradigm of the text (eg. in simple truth it is far easier to see a verse dropping from the scripture than being added, in terms of scribal activity).

So it becomes a fascinating study. At one time I thought it was an interpolation, until I studied those issues carefully. I was amazed. (One of my first interests was the unusual way the verse was referenced in 'The God of Two Testaments' by Robert Brent Graves.)

And there are some points that are totally misunderstood. There is a tendency to put on modernist glasses rather than try to understand the controversies and views of the earlier days.

The strongest theories for why the Johannine Comma mostly dropped out of the Greek line was because it was discomfiting ... to Trinitarians.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Grotius and others (including Ben David .. pen name for John Jones, 18th century unitarian) took the position that the Trinitarians did not want to see this verse .. e.g in the Sabellian controversies. This also leads to some interesting analysis when you look at certain discussions of the section (including Athanasius and/or Augustine, if I remember). This is fascinating and a little technical, I hope to write up a bit more on it at some point.

So a little counterpoint for your consideration.
God's word is pure.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven

[mizpeh]

Hello Mizpeh:

You're like a kid in a candy store with questions (that's actually a compliment. Oh that everyone was so interested). As I said, doing that would violate the rules, I can assure you. I can't give you a link and it would take me some time to do and even more to answer questions. I'll look around and see if I have it on a word document somewhere (I've done it more than once but that may have been in the days before I saved anything). Remind me in a couple weeks if you haven't heard from (not only am I busy but I'm getting old, which means I have a lot to do I just can't remember what it is). But let me suggest this, ponder it, think about it, and work on the possible answers and possible solutions for awhile. It should be a fun exercise.

Blessings,
TheLayman
TLM,

I've thought a bit about the verse Matt 28:19 and if you, like other Trinitarians I know, say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed names, as in proper names as opposed to titles denoting a relationship or even state of being ie: human, spirit, mineral, then I don't see how this verse works in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity nor would it support three persons. If these are proper names then it should read 'names' plural and not 'name' singular. And what the apostles did with this command lets us know what 'name' they baptized in.

[mbrugh]

1 john 5:7 says these three ARE one, not "three IN one."

Re: so-called church fathers, as I have said in other posts, I only want to hear from the real church fathers: Peter, Paul, James, Mark, Matthew, not the gaggle of writers that are curiously clustered around the birth of the RCC, and are ALWAYS trotted out during ANY discussion of trinity.

If they did not enter into the church via Acts 2:38, then they weren't church fathers in the first place. :beammeup:

Sorry, but someone had to say it.

Climbing down off the soapbox, now!

[TheLayman]

1 john 5:7 says these three ARE one, not "three IN one."

So you start with a straw man? Trinitarians readily agree with the passage just as it is written, I've never heard one say it says "three IN one." About the "ARE" in the "these three ARE one," you do know what a third person "PLURAL" is as opposed to say a third person singular, like "IS" don't you? Anyway, it's a third person PLURAL. In other words if you want to know what is doesn't say, it doesn't say "these three IS one." But of course the topic of this thread was Matt. 28:19 anyway.

Re: so-called church fathers, as I have said in other posts, I only want to hear from the real church fathers: Peter, Paul, James, Mark, Matthew, not the gaggle of writers that are curiously clustered around the birth of the RCC, and are ALWAYS trotted out during ANY discussion of trinity.

More bad news for you. The Oneness Pentecostal who began this thread quoted an article that purported to prove Matt. 28:19 spurious. That article "trotted" out the Early Church Fathers in an absolutely terrible attempt to prove that Matt. 28:19 was discredited historically. I won't even begin to correct your other errors there since they are irrelevant.

If they did not enter into the church via Acts 2:38, then they weren't church fathers in the first place. :beammeup:

Sorry, but someone had to say it.

Climbing down off the soapbox, now!

Rest assured I am dazzled by the depth of your comments, especially since they had absolutely zero bearing on the topic of the thread.

TheLayman

[mbrugh]

So you start with a straw man? Trinitarians readily agree with the passage just as it is written, I've never heard one say it says "three IN one." About the "ARE" in the "these three ARE one," you do know what a third person "PLURAL" is as opposed to say a third person singular, like "IS" don't you? Anyway, it's a third person PLURAL. In other words if you want to know what is doesn't say, it doesn't say "these three IS one." But of course the topic of this thread was Matt. 28:19 anyway.
Of course I know about PLURAL. IS would not be grammatically correct. I know grammar. No straw man here.
Trinitarians, by definition, believe there are "three persons IN one." Just go take a gander at all those "Statement of Faiths" on all their websites.


More bad news for you. The Oneness Pentecostal who began this thread quoted an article that purported to prove Matt. 28:19 spurious. That article "trotted" out the Early Church Fathers in an absolutely terrible attempt to prove that Matt. 28:19 was discredited historically. I won't even begin to correct your other errors there since they are irrelevant.
I don't care what article was trotted out. I am talking about what scriptures say only, not so-called "church fathers' " views on anything. Trinitarian church fathers? Oxymoron.



Rest assured I am dazzled by the depth of your comments, especially since they had absolutely zero bearing on the topic of the thread.
They have absolutely everything to do with it. However, condescension and smart-aleck attitudes do not engender fruitful discussion. You commit a grave error by not embracing the simplicity of the Gospel. Man's ideas will certainly get a person all "squirreled up" in their thinking. (Oops, sorry. The "depth" of that phrase dazzled me!)
Do you have the Holy Ghost? Scriptures teach us that we must have it in order to understand them. We are not a child of God without it.
I enjoy how you do not comment on Acts 2:38. I was once like that, you see. As a methodist growing up, I knew the book of Acts as a stepping stone to the "Roman" road of "easy believism" salvation, and could otherwise be safely ignored. Much to my detriment, sorry to say. But, I was delivered, praise God!

[mizpeh]

I was once like that, you see. As a methodist growing up, I knew the book of Acts as a stepping stone to the "Roman" road of "easy believism" salvation, and could otherwise be safely ignored. Much to my detriment, sorry to say. But, I was delivered, praise God!
mbrugh,

You were a Methodist? Then you must not have been thoroughly grounded in Trinitarian doctrine.

Don't you know that if one doesn't believe the doctrine of the Trinity it is because either they don't understand it properly or they are not sincerely seeking the truth?

Oneness cannot possibly be correct. Look at the hundreds of personal distinctions between Father and Son in the gospels. There can be no other logical explanation apart from the Trinity. It may have taken a few hundred years to perfect this teaching which none of the apostles in the epistles could properly and clearly define, but that's because it is such a great mystery.

You have the gall to say the early church fathers got it wrong! Don't you understand we serve God in community. God has given us men, apostles, preachers and teachers of His word from the beginning of the NT church age until now. You cannot exclude millions of Christians throughout the ages from being in the body of Christ just because they didn't obey Acts 2:38! The majority is always right!

Don't you know that the Jews for hundreds of years worshipped a God who did not fully reveal himself as a plurality until the end of the world. (even though Moses spoke to God face to face as a friend).












This is me ranting again. Sorry folks.

:D

[Norman]

I have previuosly heard that some Greek manuscripts have been found in the Koine Greek that said "Make disciples in my name," instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." I have also heard claims that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but I never found a source for that claim.
I would like to know how old that Hebrew manuscript is.

[mbrugh]

mbrugh,

You were a Methodist? Then you must not have been thoroughly grounded in Trinitarian doctrine.

Don't you know that if one doesn't believe the doctrine of the Trinity it is because either they don't understand it properly or they are not sincerely seeking the truth?

Oneness cannot possibly be correct. Look at the hundreds of personal distinctions between Father and Son in the gospels. There can be no other logical explanation apart from the Trinity. It may have taken a few hundred years to perfect this teaching which none of the apostles in the epistles could properly and clearly define, but that's because it is such a great mystery.

You have the gall to say the early church fathers got it wrong! Don't you understand we serve God in community. God has given us men, apostles, preachers and teachers of His word from the beginning of the NT church age. You cannot exclude millions of Christians throughout the ages from being in the body of Christ just because they didn't obey Acts 2:38! The majority is always right!

Don't you know that the Jews for hundreds of years worshipped a God who did not fully reveal himself as a plurality until the end of the world. (even though Moses spoke to God face to face as a friend).

This is me ranting again. Sorry folks.












:D
:laugh: :icon_laug
Excellent! Rant on! :tup:

[coadie]

I will start off and tell you trinitarians apparently use bibles that do not match. Trinitarians do not agree amongst themselves.

Englishe is my second language. Most folks can read enough German if we use english letters to figger something out.


Since you comment on 1 John 5



7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


1 Johannes 5:7 (Luther Bibel 1545)

Luther Bibel 1545 (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=10) (LUTH1545) Copyright © 1545 Public Domain (http://www.biblegateway.com/help/faq/?id=2#10)
http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=74 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=74)

7Denn drei sind, die da zeugen: der Geist und das Wasser und das Blut;



Luther wrote this in 1545. He started the protestant portion of the trinitarian movement. Obviously he took this scripture from some Latin or other in the catholic church. That means they had Ghost, water and blood in their scripture.

so Layman. Trinitarians do not agree with each other.

Trinitarians way back do not agree with trinitarian versions today.

You really are not their spokesperson when you say they agree.





So you start with a straw man? Trinitarians readily agree with the passage just as it is written, I've never heard one say it says "three IN one." About the "ARE" in the "these three ARE one," you do know what a third person "PLURAL" is as opposed to say a third person singular, like "IS" don't you? Anyway, it's a third person PLURAL. In other words if you want to know what is doesn't say, it doesn't say "these three IS one." But of course the topic of this thread was Matt. 28:19 anyway.




TheLayman

Trinitarians do not agree with each other. Trinitarians need to study their history and get it right.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:7;&version=10;

If the Martin Luther were alive today, would he recognize the protestant religion? (I am not a luther fan)


Back to the 2 verses for 'trinitarian movements". 1 John 5:7 is not in their favor. I am ok with it in my bible as written. I also know what it really means.

It comes up as a zero to be a foundation for 3 people/persons. It is 3 "elements".

God bless you all today.

[Sister Alvear]

I would not trust the NW translation at all.
It is provided by JW's for JW's.

Speaking of not trusting a Bible. The newer versions like NIV, NLT, etc are based on some texts that are questionable and are provided by some people that are questionable. I'm not advocating KJV only but some time you might want to read material about the background of the texts used in newer translations vs what is known as the textus receptus or received text.

Hey brother , did you ever hear Gorden Magee debate on women preachers?

[Hnovilla]

His NAME is Jesus!


MIZPEH:
“Don't you know that if one doesn't believe the doctrine of the Trinity it is because either they don't understand it properly or they are not sincerely seeking the truth?
It may have taken a few hundred years to perfect this teaching which none of the apostles in the epistles could properly and clearly define, but that's because it is such a great mystery”

Don’t you know that if a person doesn’t believe in the trinity it is because they were either preserved by the Lord from receiving that false doctrine, or delivered from it?
You say it took God a few hundred years to perfect this teaching…and none of the apostles, which were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, could clearly define...? But you and your cohorts, who are not even mentioned in the scriptures by name nor were chosen of the Lord Jesus, would tell us that you know the scriptures better that the Lord’s CHOSEN apostles and prophets?
What is this “evolutionary” doctrine you would have the Church espouse? That the doctrine of the trinity got better and more clearly defined through the centuries?
Do not the scriptures reveal the correlation between sin and death? Did not our forefathers live hundreds of years, and began dying at a faster rate? Why? Was it not because of sin? The more sin in the world, the shorter the lifespan. The more sin in the world, the more false prophets and teachers would pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Brother Villa

[JWBII]

Hello,

TLM,

I've thought a bit about the verse Matt 28:19 and if you, like other Trinitarians I know, say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed names, as in proper names as opposed to titles denoting a relationship or even state of being ie: human, spirit, mineral, then I don't see how this verse works in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity nor would it support three persons. If these are proper names then it should read 'names' plural and not 'name' singular. And what the apostles did with this command lets us know what 'name' they baptized in.

Re: It has little to do with the words being names or not. There is a grammatical issue in how the commas are used with and with out the article and the conjunction. I'll see if I can find some information online. Look up Sharpes rule in Greek grammar.

[coadie]

Hello,



Re: It has little todo with the words being names or not. There isa grammatical issues in how the commas are used with and with out the article and the conjunction. I'll see if I can find some information online. Look up Sharpes rule in Greek grammar.

Work on understanding plural and singular.

It is clear when trinitarians mingle singular and plural, they really Do not know how to deal with other languages such as Hebrew and the name "Elohim" which is in the plural.

I left the trinie movement when I started paying attention to details.

Here is the begining example of where the trinitarians force their bias.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

JWB. Which of the three deities is man made in the image of??

:clap::clap:

[JWBII]

Hello,

Work on understanding plural and singular.

Re: If being a bad at spelling is a crime you are as guilty as I am. LOL!


It is clear when trinitarians mingle singular and plural, they really Do not know how to deal with other languages such as Hebrew and the name "Elohim" which is in the plural.


Re: Unsupported assertion.


I left the trinie m,ovement when I started paying attention to details.


Re: Looked up "m,ovement" online and its not a word. Oh yeah that bad typing thing again, LOL!

Here is the beginjing example of where the trinitarians force their bias.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

JWB. Which of the three deities is man made in the image of??


Re: Wonderful example of a HUGE strawman.

And what is "beginjing" friend? LOL!

[coadie]

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

JWB. Which of the three deities is man made in the image of?? Re: Wonderful example of a HUGE strawman

So the trinitarian rules tell you in Genesis 2 to force there to be more than 1 God in Genesis 26 and deny the singular in verse 27?

Show is if you can explain the "his,He, he" in Genesis1:27.

You never have before but we always give you another chance.

[JWBII]

Hello,

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

JWB. Which of the three deities is man made in the image of?? Re: Wonderful example of a HUGE strawman

So the trinitarian rules tell you in Genesis 2 to force there to be more than 1 God in Genesis 26 and deny the singular in verse 27?

Re: Strawman! ry again.


Show is if you can explain the "his,He, he" in Genesis1:27.


Re: Sure what do you want to know?

You never have before but we always give you another chance.

Re: Actually that is untrue but if yiou have a question please ask.

[coadie]

Re: Strawman! ry again.

Code response for you do not know.



Quote:
Show is if you can explain the "his,He, he" in Genesis1:27.
Re: Sure what do you want to know?


Looks like you couldn't explain the singular pronouns.

Quote:
You never have before but we always give you another chance.
Re: Actually that is untrue but if yiou have a question please ask.

I will ask you a yes or no question.

Is the LORD Jesus Christ, (The Son OF God) the exact same LORD as The LORD that appeared to Abraham.

The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Yes or no.

Anything with qualifiers from you will be accepted as a no.

[JWBII]

Hello,

Code response for you do not know.

Re: You are incorrect.


Show is if you can explain the "his,He, he" in Genesis1:27.


Looks like you couldn't explain the singular pronouns.


Re: Sure can what do you want to know.

I will ask you a yes or no question.

Is the LORD Jesus Christ, (The Son OF God) the exact same LORD as The LORD that appeared to Abraham.

The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Yes or no.

Anything with qualifiers from you will be accepted as a no.

Re: Yes.

Now will YOU return the favor? Is the Son the exact same savior as the YHWH of the OT.

1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son, the Savior of the world.

Isa 43:3 For I, the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior: I gave Egypt, thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

Anything with qualifiers from you will be accepted as a no.

[coadie]

Next question.Now will YOU return the favor? Is the Son the exact same savior as the YHWH of the OT

.יהוה

It is common on CARM for people that don't know what they are talking about o ry o mingle different words, letters and languages.
יהוה
John.

יהוהThere are no english letters in this word.







1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son, the Savior of the world.

Isa 43:3 For I, the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior: I gave Egypt, thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

Anything with qualifiers from you will be accepted as a no.

YHWH is not in either my bible or the HEBREW>

Son. If you want to grow up. We will ask questions in one language.

OT?

The "OT" is not in my bible dictionary.

One of the trinitarin games is to toss out achronyms they define and words like trinity they conjured up.
Only One LORD Only One Savior only one God

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

How do your teachers define
יהוה

[JWBII]

Hello,

Respect is given but none is returned. Be yourself.

Next question.Now will YOU return the favor? Is the Son the exact same savior as the YHWH of the OT

.יהוה

It is common on CARM for people that don't know what they are talking about o ry o mingle different words, letters and languages.
יהוה
John.

יהוהThere are no english letters in this word.







1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son, the Savior of the world.

Isa 43:3 For I, the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior: I gave Egypt, thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

Anything with qualifiers from you will be accepted as a no.

YHWH is not in either my bible or the HEBREW>

Son. If you want to grow up. We will ask questions in one language.

OT?

The "OT" is not in my bible dictionary.

One of the trinitarin games is to toss out achronyms they define and words like trinity they conjured up.
Only One LORD Only One Savior only one God

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

How do your teachers define
יהוה

Re: Thats all I needed. You believe in two saviors when God says there is only one. Thank you for playing. :banana: You ask about the word Lord and then change to Hebrew demanding I address your issues as you ignore mine. Be yourself.

Immanuel is not in your bible either but עמּנוּאל is.

Inconsistency is the symptom of a larger disease.... heresy!

[coadie]

Re: Thats all I needed. You believe in two saviors when God says there is only one. Thank you for playing. :banana: You ask about the word Lord and then change to Hebrew demanding I address your issues as you ignore mine. Be yourself.

Immanuel is not in your bible either but עמּנוּאל is.

Inconsistency is the symptom of a larger disease.... heresy!

You provided a dishonest assertion about what i believe.

Since you can't show where I claim 2 saviors. I just wuill let you know.

The Word says to search the scriptures. I do and do not see the Word "bible" in the KJV translation.


So JWB, I see you say Jesus is not the Father I caught you indicating The Lord Jesus Christ (son of God) is Lord and The Lord God is another. So I have clearly let you show how you claim 2 LORD's. Of course that is polytheism and as a fine trinitarian, the next step is to slither and twist and switch to the word "person" and end reference to LORD.

We all have been down that road and the expressions second person of the trinity and second Lord are not in the scriptures. So we search the early Romish religions. We find them there.

Yes or no question. Do you say God is a Savior and Jesus is also?

2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Is that a Savior? Is it Jesus or the Father?

Why are you so inconsent?

[JWBII]

Helo,

You provided a dishonest assertion about what i believe.

Re: Unsupported assertion.


Since you can't show where I claim 2 saviors. I just wuill let you know.


Re: Live by the rules you set for others.


The Word says to search the scriptures. I do and do not see the Word "bible" in the KJV translation.


Re: I am happy for you.


So JWB, I see you say Jesus is not the Father I caught you indicating The Lord Jesus Christ (son of God) is Lord and The Lord God is another.


Re: MAde no such claim. Strawman.


So I have clearly let you show how you claim 2 LORD's.


Re: Only in your own mind.


Of course that is polytheism and as a fine trinitarian, the next step is to slither and twist and switch to the word "person" and end reference to LORD.


Re: None of this has ANYTHING to do with what I stated. Waste of time.


We all have been down that road and the expressions second person of the trinity and second Lord are not in the scriptures. So we search the early Romish religions. We find them there.


Re: Great since you have never seen me use them.

Yes or no question. Do you say God is a Savior and Jesus is also?

2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Is that a Savior? Is it Jesus or the Father?

Why are you so inconsent?

Re: Your games have been exposed. Inconsistency is the symptom of a larger disease..... heresy.

[mizpeh]

His NAME is Jesus!


MIZPEH:
“Don't you know that if one doesn't believe the doctrine of the Trinity it is because either they don't understand it properly or they are not sincerely seeking the truth?
It may have taken a few hundred years to perfect this teaching which none of the apostles in the epistles could properly and clearly define, but that's because it is such a great mystery”

Don’t you know that if a person doesn’t believe in the trinity it is because they were either preserved by the Lord from receiving that false doctrine, or delivered from it?
You say it took God a few hundred years to perfect this teaching…and none of the apostles, which were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, could clearly define...? But you and your cohorts, who are not even mentioned in the scriptures by name nor were chosen of the Lord Jesus, would tell us that you know the scriptures better that the Lord’s CHOSEN apostles and prophets?
What is this “evolutionary” doctrine you would have the Church espouse? That the doctrine of the trinity got better and more clearly defined through the centuries?
Do not the scriptures reveal the correlation between sin and death? Did not our forefathers live hundreds of years, and began dying at a faster rate? Why? Was it not because of sin? The more sin in the world, the shorter the lifespan. The more sin in the world, the more false prophets and teachers would pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Brother Villa

Brother Villa,

I was being facetious and extremely sarcastic with my comments. I'm not a Trinitarian. I was saying what some of them say to me but responding as if I were one of them to show their arrogance and faulty reasoning. I agree with you the doctrine of the Trinity was an evolution of thought. It was not fully expressed until over 300 years after Christ's death. If the Trinity is true then Paul did not really know the God that he said he knew.....I know whom I have believed...1 Tim 1:12 because Paul was long dead by the time the doctrine of the Trinity came into fullness.

[Ghostrider]

So you start with a straw man? Trinitarians readily agree with the passage just as it is written, I've never heard one say it says "three IN one." About the "ARE" in the "these three ARE one," you do know what a third person "PLURAL" is as opposed to say a third person singular, like "IS" don't you? Anyway, it's a third person PLURAL. In other words if you want to know what is doesn't say, it doesn't say "these three IS one." But of course the topic of this thread was Matt. 28:19 anyway.



More bad news for you. The Oneness Pentecostal who began this thread quoted an article that purported to prove Matt. 28:19 spurious. That article "trotted" out the Early Church Fathers in an absolutely terrible attempt to prove that Matt. 28:19 was discredited historically. I won't even begin to correct your other errors there since they are irrelevant.



Rest assured I am dazzled by the depth of your comments, especially since they had absolutely zero bearing on the topic of the thread.

TheLayman


We share a common history with all Christians, at least until the mid-sixteenth century. From the mid sixteenth century until the early twentieth century, we share a common history with the other Protestants. But on second thought, it may be possible that we truly only share a common history with the Christians of the Apostolic Church Age; and it may be possible that those Christians are the true predecessors of the Arians, Sabellians, and other Monarchianists.


These people may not have believed too differently from us. The written record only contains, as an account of their beliefs, the inquisitors case against them -- the actual prosecutors of these people are responsible for the only information about what they believed. We know from our discussions with Trinitarian zealots how they attempt to distort our beliefs.

The writings of the various Modalist teachers, like all writings that conflicted with RCC doctrines or dogmas, the RCC deemed heretical and were ordered destroyed under penalty of death. Who was the RCC enforcer? After the Emperor Constantine realized the political power he would wield during the early years of the Christianizing of the Roman Empire, he quickly gained control of the RCC in an unholy alliance. This alliance with the Roman Empire continued from the early fourth century into the sixteenth century.

Along the way, similar alliances were established with the heads of states in virtually all RC countries. If the Church’s power was ever threatened by a growing belief in an opposing doctrine (illegal for more than a millennium under Roman law), the Holy See would send the Roman Army or the army of the appropriate country to completely destroy all traces of it. The only exceptions being the written charges specifying the heresies that were brought against those whose theology didn't agree.

It was also punishable by death to own a Bible translated into a common language. If you were taught Scripture, you either had to be educated in Latin or you got your understanding from the RCC. The RCC reestablished the preisthood and positioned themselves between God and man. Not as a mediator, but as an obstacle.

Many such documents of the accusers are now classified as “Patristic Writings”, and their writers as Patristics or Church Fathers. In many cases their writings are considered doctrinal authority on the given matter, giving those writers the added distinction of “Doctors” of the Catholic Faith.

During that time, from the late third through the sixteenth centuries, countless doctrinal works were destroyed, and countless millions of people who may have believed the truth were murdered to protect and promote the errant doctrines and innovated dogmas of the RCC.

Was this Christ’s plan for making disciples of all nations? Was murder and destruction of opposing beliefs ever a part of Christ’s ministry? Come on people… if it wasn’t from Christ, where did it come from? Would these people who are willing to go so far as to participate in mass murder to protect their errors, be unwilling to redact Matthew 28:19 and others? The long version of Matthew 28:19 didn't exist in any Greek text prior to the fourth century. I know RCC apologists will trot out the few ambiguous Patristic writings that show an early reference to the long version, but if they were willing to redact the Gospel according to Matthew, why would they stop at non-canonical writings?

Eusebius, for example was mentioned in a previous post as an early witness to the long version of Matthew 28:19. Well, His single long version reference came after the Council of Nicea, and it's odd that those who cite it fail to bring into account his numerous citations of the shorter, non-trinitarian version. Maybe his writing was also redacted or maybe he caved in to the new Roman law.

If that argument fails, we should still realize that we really don't know the exact date of the RCC polytheistic hi-jacking of Christ's Church. We just know that the apostles were staunch monotheists even after becoming Christians. If they would have had such an important revelation as the existence of a Trinity of god-persons, they would certainly have recorded it clearly within the deposit of faith.

Ghostrider

[TheLayman]

We share a common history with all Christians, at least until the mid-sixteenth century. From the mid sixteenth century until the early twentieth century, we share a common history with the other Protestants. But on second thought, it may be possible that we truly only share a common history with the Christians of the Apostolic Church Age; and it may be possible that those Christians are the true predecessors of the Arians, Sabellians, and other Monarchianists.


These people may not have believed too differently from us. The written record only contains, as an account of their beliefs, the inquisitors case against them -- the actual prosecutors of these people are responsible for the only information about what they believed. We know from our discussions with Trinitarian zealots how they attempt to distort our beliefs.

The writings of the various Modalist teachers, like all writings that conflicted with RCC doctrines or dogmas, the RCC deemed heretical and were ordered destroyed under penalty of death. Who was the RCC enforcer? After the Emperor Constantine realized the political power he would wield during the early years of the Christianizing of the Roman Empire, he quickly gained control of the RCC in an unholy alliance. This alliance with the Roman Empire continued from the early fourth century into the sixteenth century.

Along the way, similar alliances were established with the heads of states in virtually all RC countries. If the Church’s power was ever threatened by a growing belief in an opposing doctrine (illegal for more than a millennium under Roman law), the Holy See would send the Roman Army or the army of the appropriate country to completely destroy all traces of it. The only exceptions being the written charges specifying the heresies that were brought against those whose theology didn't agree.

It was also punishable by death to own a Bible translated into a common language. If you were taught Scripture, you either had to be educated in Latin or you got your understanding from the RCC. The RCC reestablished the preisthood and positioned themselves between God and man. Not as a mediator, but as an obstacle.

Many such documents of the accusers are now classified as “Patristic Writings”, and their writers as Patristics or Church Fathers. In many cases their writings are considered doctrinal authority on the given matter, giving those writers the added distinction of “Doctors” of the Catholic Faith.

During that time, from the late third through the sixteenth centuries, countless doctrinal works were destroyed, and countless millions of people who may have believed the truth were murdered to protect and promote the errant doctrines and innovated dogmas of the RCC.

Was this Christ’s plan for making disciples of all nations? Was murder and destruction of opposing beliefs ever a part of Christ’s ministry? Come on people… if it wasn’t from Christ, where did it come from? Would these people who are willing to go so far as to participate in mass murder to protect their errors, be unwilling to redact Matthew 28:19 and others? The long version of Matthew 28:19 didn't exist in any Greek text prior to the fourth century. I know RCC apologists will trot out the few ambiguous Patristic writings that show an early reference to the long version, but if they were willing to redact the Gospel according to Matthew, why would they stop at non-canonical writings?

Eusebius, for example was mentioned in a previous post as an early witness to the long version of Matthew 28:19. Well, His single long version reference came after the Council of Nicea, and it's odd that those who cite it fail to bring into account his numerous citations of the shorter, non-trinitarian version. Maybe his writing was also redacted or maybe he caved in to the new Roman law.

If that argument fails, we should still realize that we really don't know the exact date of the RCC polytheistic hi-jacking of Christ's Church. We just know that the apostles were staunch monotheists even after becoming Christians. If they would have had such an important revelation as the existence of a Trinity of god-persons, they would certainly have recorded it clearly within the deposit of faith.

Ghostrider

Greetings Ghostrider:

I don't think you read the whole thread. I'm not even sure you read the article that was posted in the original post (which would be the topic of the thread). I would encourage you to do so. Then you could read this post which is a response to the article in the first post:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=279961#poststop

Here is a quote from that post:

My question is: why would anyone who supposedly loves the Word of God bring it into question unnecessarily. As I’ve stated above in some detail, there is no evidence against Matthew 28:19. But I know that even if you know that it is the inspired Word of God, you aren’t going to change your theology because of it. Indeed, even if what I’ve written convinces you to be very careful calling the Word of God into question, I don’t believe I’ve changed your theology. So again my question is: what would anyone so carelessly criticize the Word of God, and why would anyone want to perpetuate such nonsense.

When you start saying something in the Word of God doesn’t belong there you aren’t taking issue with me or my beliefs, you are in fact taking issue with what purports to be the Word of God. If you say something in Scripture is wrong or a lie you don’t get to blame that on someone else, you will be accountable for your own words. So unless you really know what you’re talking about I personally think a person would be wise to pause and consider the ramifications and importance of being critical of what purports to be the Word of God and your reasons for doing so. With regard to Matthew 28:19, if you believe that this passage is false and was corrupted in spite of the complete lack of evidence for believing this and in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence for it my opinion is that you should go throw your Bible away right now. It should be worthless to you. In spite of real evidence, real history, and real critical analysis, apparently any and all the text could have been corrupted by this great conspiracy of Trinitarians. Talk about people that could keep a secret eh? You would think if they were going to corrupt the text without anyone knowing they would have done a much better job and then ceased their theological arguments with one another. In short, when you bring a passage such as Matthew 28:19 in disrepute, you bring all of Scripture into disrepute in the eyes of unbelievers.


TheLayman

[Ghostrider]

Greetings Ghostrider:

I don't think you read the whole thread. I'm not even sure you read the article that was posted in the original post (which would be the topic of the thread). I would encourage you to do so. Then you could read this post which is a response to the article in the first post:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=279961#poststop

Here is a quote from that post:

My question is: why would anyone who supposedly loves the Word of God bring it into question unnecessarily. As I’ve stated above in some detail, there is no evidence against Matthew 28:19. But I know that even if you know that it is the inspired Word of God, you aren’t going to change your theology because of it. Indeed, even if what I’ve written convinces you to be very careful calling the Word of God into question, I don’t believe I’ve changed your theology. So again my question is: what would anyone so carelessly criticize the Word of God, and why would anyone want to perpetuate such nonsense.

When you start saying something in the Word of God doesn’t belong there you aren’t taking issue with me or my beliefs, you are in fact taking issue with what purports to be the Word of God. If you say something in Scripture is wrong or a lie you don’t get to blame that on someone else, you will be accountable for your own words. So unless you really know what you’re talking about I personally think a person would be wise to pause and consider the ramifications and importance of being critical of what purports to be the Word of God and your reasons for doing so. With regard to Matthew 28:19, if you believe that this passage is false and was corrupted in spite of the complete lack of evidence for believing this and in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence for it my opinion is that you should go throw your Bible away right now. It should be worthless to you. In spite of real evidence, real history, and real critical analysis, apparently any and all the text could have been corrupted by this great conspiracy of Trinitarians. Talk about people that could keep a secret eh? You would think if they were going to corrupt the text without anyone knowing they would have done a much better job and then ceased their theological arguments with one another. In short, when you bring a passage such as Matthew 28:19 in disrepute, you bring all of Scripture into disrepute in the eyes of unbelievers.


TheLayman


Layman,

I respect you and your impressive knowledge of theology. I don't agree with certain aspects of your understanding of it, but even in those instances, I respect the eloquence with which you make your arguments. I appreciate the gravity of my coming to the conclusion that Matthew 28:19 is a redaction. I haven't done so lightly or without considerable study. For quite some time, in spite of the evidence that it is a redaction, I'd refused to admit it because of the very reasons you've cited. I wonder if you are doing as I was doing—ignoring the evidence. If it isn't the inspired
word, then I'm doing no violence against it.

Since I believe the evidence is in favor of the verse being an apostate RCC redaction; if I were to go against my reasoning to accept the redaction as inspired, and it proves not to be; is it a worse sin for me to determine that the evidence supports the verse to be a redaction, and in spite of it believe the redacted version instead, and it proves to be false? Which would be the greater sin?

I'm sure I have looked at the same evidence you have to come to the opposite conclusion. I think you'll find that the scholars whose opinions are in opposition are also divided along Trinitarian and Oneness lines. In the case of secular scholars who don't have the Theological bias, you'll find the vast majority to be in the camp of those who believe it was redacted.

I'll be happy to discuss my reasoning and evidence if you like.

Do you find fault with my account of early church history in the post to which you responded? Do you agree with my understanding of Constantine’s motivation?

God Bless, Ghostrider

[TheLayman]

Layman,

I respect you and your impressive knowledge of theology. I don't agree with certain aspects of your understanding of it, but even in those instances, I respect the eloquence with which you make your arguments. I appreciate the gravity of my coming to the conclusion that Matthew 28:19 is a redaction. I haven't done so lightly or without considerable study. For quite some time, in spite of the evidence that it is a redaction, I'd refused to admit it because of the very reasons you've cited. I wonder if you are doing as I was doing—ignoring the evidence. If it isn't the inspired
word, then I'm doing no violence against it.

Since I believe the evidence is in favor of the verse being an apostate RCC redaction; if I were to go against my reasoning to accept the redaction as inspired, and it proves not to be; is it a worse sin for me to determine that the evidence supports the verse to be a redaction, and in spite of it believe the redacted version instead, and it proves to be false? Which would be the greater sin?

I'm sure I have looked at the same evidence you have to come to the opposite conclusion. I think you'll find that the scholars whose opinions are in opposition are also divided along Trinitarian and Oneness lines. In the case of secular scholars who don't have the Theological bias, you'll find the vast majority to be in the camp of those who believe it was redacted.

I'll be happy to discuss my reasoning and evidence if you like.

Do you find fault with my account of early church history in the post to which you responded? Do you agree with my understanding of Constantine’s motivation?

God Bless, Ghostrider

Hello Ghostrider:

My opinion of your account of church history is irrelevant to the topic as is your account itself. You said: "For quite some time, in spite of the evidence that it is a redaction, I'd refused to admit it because of the very reasons you've cited. I wonder if you are doing as I was doing—ignoring the evidence." Again, I don't believe you are reading the thread even when links are supplied. So let me simplify this: There has not been one shred of evidence presented in this thread against the Biblical rendering of Matt. 28:19! I include your posts in this statement, not one shred of evidence against the Biblical rendering of Matt. 28:19. On the other hand, all evidence is actually for the Biblical rendering of Matt. 28:19! That is the amazing thing; that so many people can read be convinced that something like Matt. 28:19 is spurious in spite of zero evidence against, all evidence for it. Again, I don't think you are reading the thread or links.

That said, if you believe there is evidence against Matt. 28:19 then let's begin by you giving me one piece of evidence at a time. Begin by giving me your single best piece of evidence against Matt. 28:19.

TheLayman

[Brandonh]

20+ times Eusebius prior to Nicea quoted the text and said nothing of
BAPTISM
and nothing of Father, Son, Holy Ghost as well.
If it was there, surely he would have gotten it right one time prior to 325 a.d.

The Hebrew Shem Tov of Matthew 28:19 does not have it either.

Why do we not see it one time witnessed to as other passages dealing with Jesus name baptism form Peter and Paul and Philip the evangelist in Acts?

Why is it historical references show that the Catholic/Trinity church changed water baptism from a single name formula to a triune name formula and admit they did it and scholars agreeing with us?

Historical and Scriptural evidence then is against your position for it being used as a formula for baptism and may not even be the original anyway then.
Notice no one can tell us who the first person so baptized in titled names and we can find the first people baptized in scripture in JESUS NAME.

p.s. please don't run and hide behind the 'authority only" joke, it won't fly, you must change then the meaning of many passages where it says "in a name or in my name".

[mizpeh]

20+ times Eusebius prior to Nicea quoted the text and said nothing of
BAPTISM
and nothing of Father, Son, Holy Ghost as well.
If it was there, surely he would have gotten it right one time prior to 325 a.d.

The Hebrew Shem Tov of Matthew 28:19 does not have it either.

Why do we not see it one time witnessed to as other passages dealing with Jesus name baptism form Peter and Paul and Philip the evangelist in Acts?

Why is it historical references show that the Catholic/Trinity church changed water baptism from a single name formula to a triune name formula and admit they did it and scholars agreeing with us?

Historical and Scriptural evidence then is against your position for it being used as a formula for baptism and may not even be the original anyway then.
Notice no one can tell us who the first person so baptized in titled names and we can find the first people baptized in scripture in JESUS NAME.

p.s. please don't run and hide behind the 'authority only" joke, it won't fly, you must change then the meaning of many passages where it says "in a name or in my name".
Brandon,

Would you please post the links to the 20+ times Eusebius used the text of Matt 28 and didn't quote verse 19 or mention baptism? and the references to water baptism being changed from a single name formula to a triune forumula? Why do you suppose the church changed the words spoken at baptism?

[Brandonh]

Which of the three persons is man made after.
The Father in whom the Son was the express image of him and are we made also in his image?
The Son second person who was made the express image of the Father image the first persons?
The third person who is missing in most of the Bible in regards to Fatehr and Son spoken of?

You don't like three gods, so was it as trinitarians say three persons and thus which one or do you have some other convoluted way to express your deity?

[Brandonh]

Brandon,

Would you please post the links to the 20+ times Eusebius used the text of Matt 28 and didn't quote verse 19 or mention baptism? and the references to water baptism being changed from a single name formula to a triune forumula? Why do you suppose the church changed the words spoken at baptism?

mizpeh, seven of them are in Proof of the Gospel also called Demonstratio Evangelica. There may be a internet link, but I have the book. I have also read in Bishop Clinton Willis's book whee he states it is 20-22 times found (seems to be some discrepancy in the number). I know of seven for certain.

The Evan Bohan Shem Tov of Matthew 28;19 does not render that verse with baptism at all or the titles.

I do not happen to have either book from home with me to give info, but can get it.

I will get a link for the proofs against the Trinity wording from historical sources as found in Gordon Reckarts board.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/trinity.html

Bishop Willis quotes from his book 'Ancient Creeds' on baptismal formula

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS. pg 25 on Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28%3A19)
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 trsutworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticsm, literary criticism and historical criticism."
The same Encyclopedia further states that :"The obvious explaination 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 pg 28: "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) 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 N.T. COMMENTARIES , I, pg 275 : "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Fatehr, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

WILHELM BOUSETT, KYRIOS CHRISTIANITY, pg 295 :"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal[in the name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28%3A19), the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Vol II pg 263 : "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST by the Catholic Church in the second century."

[Brandonh]

"
It is doubted whether the explicit injunction of Matt. 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. ...But the Trinitarian formula in the mouth of Jesus is certainly unexpected" (A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, J. Hastings, 1906, page 170).

"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the epistles of the apostles" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).

Footnote to Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28%3A19), It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Acts+1%3A5) +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same" (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).

Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) "... has been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether thy may be the ipsissima verba of Jesus. The evidence of Acts 2:38 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Acts+2%3A38); 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal. 3:27 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Gal.+3%3A27); Rom 6:3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Rom+6%3A3), suggest that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus." This is difficult to reconcile with the specific instructions of the verse at the end of Matthew" (The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, page 351).

Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143).

G.R. Beasley-Murray in his book, "Baptism in the New Testament" and a believer of the trinity doctrine, gives us some new insight on how the original text of Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) was structured:

"A whole group of exegetes and critics have recognized that the opening declaration of Matt. 28:18 demands a Christological statement to follow it: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" leads us to expect as a consequence, "Go and make disciples unto Me among all the nations, baptising them in My name, teaching them to observe all things I commanded you." In fact, the first and third clauses have that significance: it looks as thought the second clause has been modified from a Christological to a Trinitarian formula in the interests of the liturgical tradition" (G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962, pg. 83).

[jlw515]

I've read a lot about Matt. 28:19 being spurious and it is based mostly on Eusebius' quotations of this verse.

I would caution people of being dogmatic of this view though, because it would seem that if the text has been tampered with or there was some sort of conspiracy; there would be some evidence of it somewhere whether textual or testimonial. Its the same premise for the JW's saying that the Greek text was tampered with and "Jehovah" was removed and "Kurios" was added. If such a grand conspiracy existed there would have to be some sort of historical testimony or examples of textual variants.

Now, as far as Matthew 28:19 goes the only "historical testimony" that we have (as far as I know) is the quotations of Eusebius. However, the words of Eusebius could be considered commentary rather than a direct quote from our Lord. As far as textual variants go, the only one I am aware of is the Pe****to Syriac (Aramaic) which deletes the texts of Matt. 28:19 altogether, thus it cannot be considered a "textual variant".

I would be interested in reading what Bro. McGee wrote on the issue. I've read Bro. Reckart's article and some other stuff; but so far the evidence just isn't there for me to say "yeah" on the issue.

Bro. Jason

[Praxeus]

I've read a lot about Matt. 28:19 being spurious and it is based mostly on Eusebius' quotations of this verse..... the words of Eusebius could be considered commentary rather than a direct quote from our Lord. Hi Jason, what you say about the mixed Eusebius writings is almost trivially true. How many times do even we say we were "baptized in the name of the Lord", an expression that is in full harmony with Matthew 28:19 and is used directly in the Book of Acts. Oh, and later writers such as Chrysostom also used the supposedly earlier suppressed form, in a similar manner as Eusebius. It is also worth noting that those trying to find a cause of offense in Matthew 28:19 have often grossly misrepresented even Eusebius, as has been pointed out most recently by UK scholar Peter Head, since Eusebius quoted the verse as we know it in Matthew a good number of times.

Very significantly, it would be helpful to simply look at the list of quotes below, even from way before Eusebius. And then combine them with the essentially unanimous textual evidence in all the Greek, Latin and Syriac lines, plus other ancient lines. Remember the following quotes average about a full century before Eusebius and Nicea, way before any weak theories of potential ecclesiastical tampering. Even two or three Ante-Nicene quotes demolishes the Eusebius tampering theory, which is prima facie nonsense anyway (Old Latin and Syriac text lines, Greek lines far away, Coptic, etc. could never be explained by such a theory, NT transmission was very diverse even in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) and we have reference upon citation upon quotation.

(About Nicea and the Bible, it is good to read the excellent Roger Pearse website.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
The Council of Nicaea and the Bible )

Many early writer citations were placed in a couple of posts here.
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=285805&postcount=44 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=285805&postcount=44)
Disassembling an attack on scripture and oneness !

Which leads to:
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218942&postcount=77
An index and quotes of :

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 150 AD)
IGNATIUS
IRENAEUS [a.d. 120-202.],
DIATESSORAN - TATIAN [c.175]
DIDACHE (c. 2nd century)
APOSTOLIC TEACHINGS - (Late 2d to early 3d century)
Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles - Apostolic Canons

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218957&postcount=79
TERTULLIAN (c.200 AD)
HIPPOLYTUS [170-236 AD]
CYPRIAN (c. 230 AD)\
ORIGEN (c.230 AD)
GREGORY THAUMATURGUS (c. 250 AD)
TREATISE AGAINST NOVATIAN by an ANONYMOUS BISHOP (c.255)
TREATISE ON REBAPTISM (c. 250)
VICTORINUS (c. 300 AD)

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (3rd century)
Lucius of Castra Galbae '
Munnulus of Girba
Euchratius of Thenae
Bishop Vincentius of Thibaris

You might try to get an answer about this from Marvin Arnold and Mark Kennicott and Cohen Reckart and Clinton D. Willis and Randall Hughes and others who afaik are considered oneness and supposedly accept scripture as God's word and yet try to deny the mountain of attestation for Matthew 28:19 as scripture. (First, why did they all omit these references in all their 'scholarly' papers ??).

Jason, they are in a very difficult way, fighting a verse that looks to have more textual and early church writer evidence than any other verse in the Bible. This nonsense was ably disassembled over a century ago (on the web: F. H. Chase, "The Lord's Command to Baptize," The Journal of Theological Studies VI -July 1905-:481-521) but today with the ease of finding quotations it makes these oneness folks fighting scripture a laughingstock, an embarrassment. At least one Trinitarian site rightfully and aptly mocks the oneness Pentecostal and unitarian confusions and hand-wavings and unbelief on this issue of God's scripture. That is, the elements in our midst that are in unbelief about God's word.

And Layman does you a service to not give this nonsense any quarter. We may differ about the proper exegesis of Matthew 28:19 (I see the harmony with Acts as the foundation of oneness and the Deity of Messiah and the majesty and supremacy of the name of Jesus Christ) but he is surely correct to defend God's word. Personally, I would rather join in defending God's word (even with doctrines disagreeing) than fight God's word .. ugh .. with supposed doctrinal compatriots.

Overall, when folks embrace strange fire like this attack on scripture, we are not talking logic and sense here, but a spiritual principality that blinds men to the truth, majesty, authority and perfection of God's word. Men, in their flesh, like to rewrite God's word, to declare their authority and sovereignty above God.

All of this is especially strange here since the harmony of Matthew 28:19 and the Book of Acts is a foundational oneness harmony.

===========

Thank you Lord Jesus for your pure and perfect word.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

[jlw515]

The only two names you mentioned that I know are Marvin Arnold and "Cohen" Reckart. I actually know Bro. Reckart personally, but do not take the stance that he does on Matt. 28:19 being spurious.

Also, I have read 2 or 3 of Marvin Arnold's books. I have actually taken the time to read some of the source material that Bro. Arnold cites. However, I found that some of his sources did not quite express the oneness view as he made it out to be.

Bro. Jason

[kimo]

Amen

[Praxeus]

The only two names you mentioned that I know are Marvin Arnold and "Cohen" Reckart. Greetings, Jason.

The other names and articles you should be able to find on the web by
simply by putting in their name and 'Matthew 28:19' to google. Most or
all are in the oneness camp, although if I erred on any I would be happy
to be corrected. Plus Marion Fretwell's blog has recently shared from
some of the deficient sources that try to instill doubt about Matthew
28:19 as God's word.

What you shared about Marvin Arnold and oneness was a bit obscure
above, perhaps you are sharing that some of his doctrine is problematic.
And if you could point me to Brother McGee (website, church name) so I
could find his article too, it would be appreciated.

It would be nice to try to share the materials (basically the post above with
the full quotes from the early writers, with some additional details about
the MSS evidence, with some examples of the disassembling by Trinitarian
writers and maybe a bit more) to those oneness authors who have fallen
into the trap of :

a) Not realizing that Matthew 28:19 in harmony with Acts is one of
our foundational scripture verses.

b) Fought God's word in what is the single best-attested scripture
in the whole Bible. (Early writer citations, unanimity of textual
evidence across languages and text lines.)

I have looked at a good number of verses and never seen that
quantity and depth of Ante-Nicene citations. As an example,
Acts 8:37 is a powerful verse doctrinally that does has mixed
textual evidences (unlike Matthew 28:19). For those who are
concerned that it is not scripture, the telling and tipping point
will often be the early church writer evidences, who solidly
suport the verse. The clear Ante-Nicene evidences are two,
Irenaeus and Cyprian. Is that a lot ? In this context, yes.
Now look at Matthew 28:19 above.

In terms of getting this error straightened out .. it is difficult
for someone who has invested a lot of energy in an a-biblical
'revelation' to turn around. There is an aspect of man's nature
that likes to 'correct' scripture.

God's grace is sufficient and abundant.

Yours in Jesus name,
Steven

[alogi1]

Please go and read this article.Its strong possibity that Mt.28;19 was changed, to fit the trinitarains view point.There are such things as lying scribes, Jesus Christ said so.

[Praxeus]

Please go and read this article.Its strong possibity that Mt.28;19 was changed, to fit the trinitarains view point.There are such things as lying scribes, Jesus Christ said so.Hi Alogi,

Yes, I have read the various articles that try to claim a change in Matthew 28:19 (a foundational oneness and Deity of Messiah verse, in harmony with Acts). And I have shown how they are extremely flawed, especially in not pointing out the wealth of Ante-Nicene, and before Eusebius, early church writers who support the reading that is in virtually every manuscript in every language. (Thus making this likely the single most-strongly-attested verse in the whole Bible.)

You are welcome to comment on what is written and pointed to above. I would especially be interested in :

a) Your view of the 15-20 references given.

b) Your view of the honesty of a presentation about the te