- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 02 2011,22:01)
What will you say when an older ms is found that has “in my name” in 28:19, like the one Eusebius claimed to have read?
MikeHere is Eusebius own words…
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.21 (emphasis mine) Source
I know you must wish that Matthew 28:19 is not true, but all of the arguing that you guys do against it is proof to me that it does speak of the “Trinity”.
BTW did you read his words “God from God“?
WJ
Hi Keith,
The following is from your own source:
Matthew 28:19
eij~ to; o[noma tou` patro;~ kai; tou` uiJou` kai; tou` aJgivou pneuvmato~
A Text-Critical Investigation
—————————————————————
Tim Hegg • TorahResource • 2006
In some recent Christological discussions, the tripartite designation included in the standard texts of
Matthew 28:19 has often been suspect. The problem is that it sounds far too trinitarian to have been included
in Matthew’s original words. As a result, a few modern scholars have suggested that the ending
of Matthew’s gospel might well have been added by later scribes under the influence of the trinitarian
controversies that embroiled the Christian Church in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. The primary evidence
upon which such suggestions rest is the quote or allusion to this text in the writings of Eusebius. As an
example, we may note his words in Ecclesiastical History, Book III.5.ii:For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as
many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James,
the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained
the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described.
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction,
and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the
power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”On the basis of this Eusebian quote as well as the apparent “baptismal formula” of Acts and the Epistles,
some commentators have suggested that the tripartate phrase of v. 19 was a liturgical interpolation or expansion
on the original words of our Master, which enjoined baptism “in My name” rather than in the
“name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Hagner explains:The threefold name (at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of
his day (thus Hubbard; cf Didymus 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed
by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read “make disciples in my name” (see Conybeare). This shorter
reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation.Read it all, Keith – not just the parts that suit you. We've seen an actual QUOTE of a writing from Eusebius where he CLEARLY says “in my name” was the command from Jesus.
We've seen the logic that the triadic formula fits awkwardly, and the fact that this formula was NOT the formula used by the disciples in scripture……………NOT ONCE.
But most importantly, like I've been saying from the beginning of this discussion months ago, even with your preferred ending, it STILL doesn't imply any “triune Godhead”. And your source bears that out by saying, “at most only an incipient trinitarianism”. See Keith? AT MOST, it could POSSIBLY BE construed to SORT OF start to imply a trinity God.
So let's weigh the “INCIPIENT TRINITARIANISM” in this scripture, which has what your source calls a “GOOD POSSIBILITY” of being an “AWKWARD INTERPOLATION” anyway, against the rest of scripture.
But remember, to even do this, we must FORGET the clearly written words of Eusibius and the EVIDENCE of the baptismal formula that was actually used by Jesus' disciples in the scriptures.
You said:
Quote BTW did you read his words “God from God”?
Absolutely. What of it? Read my last post in my thread about points I don't have to refute anymore. I clearly tell you that if I had lived in the first or second century, I too would have happily called Jesus “my god”, knowing full well he was the Son of THE GOD.Did YOU read the word “FROM”? As in “God FROM God”?
Listen Keith, if some trinitarian changed the formula in the actual word of God itself, don't you think they could have changed Eusebius' words in his quote that you posted as well?
Ask Jack about it. He has posted proof that Eusebius' words in the Nicene Creed were later doctored by the trinitarians.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,14:26) Mike Prove it is corrupt big boy!
WJ
Keith, don't you get it yet? I don't have to “prove it corrupt”, although Eusebius' own unrefuted words do a good job of that. But even as it is, it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any “triune Godhead”. Don't you get that?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,18:06) Read it all, Keith – not just the parts that suit you. We've seen an actual QUOTE of a writing from Eusebius where he CLEARLY says “in my name” was the command from Jesus.
Ha ha MikeI have read it all and it is merely speculation to say the scripture was doctored. There is absolutely zero proof of such but only rumors and false claims and wishful thinking.
Where? Where is Eusebius proof? But even so why isn't there a manuscript out of “Thousands” that reads Matthew 28:19 the way Eusebius supposedly says he seen it?
Where is the manuscript? Why do you argue against this scripture? Is it because it adds validity to the Trinitarian view?
Where is the evidence Mike, not just a rumor by a man whos integrity is questionable?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,18:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,14:26) Mike Prove it is corrupt big boy!
WJ
Keith, don't you get it yet? I don't have to “prove it corrupt”, although Eusebius' own unrefuted words do a good job of that. But even as it is, it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any “triune Godhead”. Don't you get that?
mike
Then why do you have such a problem with it being Jesus words?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,14:34) David The point is Jesus mentions “Three” all having the definite article and sharing a “singular name”.
Keith, what exactly IS this “mystery name” that the disciples were told to baptize into?We already know Jehovah's name. We know Jesus' name. And we know the Holy Spirit has no name because it isn't a person.
What name DID the disciples baptize into? Seems to me it was one name that we all already know…………..not some “mystery name” that no one knows, and therefore doesn't have a chance of being baptized into.
Keith, the war is lost for you my friend. We have one spurious scripture against many scriptures that show us clearly whose name people were baptized into. Do you really think the disciples just ignored Jesus' command and picked their own name in which to baptize people?
Give it up my friend. You look very desparate clinging to this, as if the very life of your comically flawed man-made doctrine depended solely on this one scripture.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,17:21) Then why do you have such a problem with it being Jesus words?
Really Keith? Isn't it fairly obvious the “problem” we all have with it?Eusebius shows a different wording. No disciple in scripture baptized into any name except for Jesus'. And even as it is, it doesn't prove diddly squat.
So the “problem” I believe we're having with it is that YOU keep bringing it up as if it proves we have a triune God – when it absoluted does not.
mike
For all:
Especially take note of the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia at 2 minutes and 30 seconds into the video.
And the quote from Pope Benedict XVI located at 7 minutes, 45 seconds into the video.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,10:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,18:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,14:26) Mike Prove it is corrupt big boy!
WJ
Keith, don't you get it yet? I don't have to “prove it corrupt”, although Eusebius' own unrefuted words do a good job of that. But even as it is, it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any “triune Godhead”. Don't you get that?
mike
Then why do you have such a problem with it being Jesus words?
Keith,Exactly! If Matthew 19:28 does not teach the trinity doctrine, then twhy do the anti-ts want to prove corruption? This would be a matter of interpretation and NOT of corruption.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 04 2011,10:55) For all: Especially take note of the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia at 2 minutes and 30 seconds into the video.
And the quote from Pope Benedict XVI located at 7 minutes, 45 seconds into the video.
peace and love,
mikeMike,
You told thehappyman that I have taught you not to quote sources “half cocked” and then you invoke a video source that does just exactly that! Here is a sample of how your video source quotes other sources halfcocked.
Quote The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not
the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.
But this is a deceptive quote because it represents the description of what others believe, not what the
author himself holds. Here is the actual quote with its context:
Secondly, it is often affirmed, that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [the words themselves] of Jesus, but either the evangelist’s words put into
His mouth, or a later liturgical addition. It is argued that on the lips of Jesus they are an anachronism; that
the early Church did not in fact use them as a baptismal formula till the second century; and that Eusebius
of Caesarea in quoting this passage often omits or varies these words. On the other hand, the words are
found in all extant Mss; and it is difficult to see why the evangelist should have inserted them if at the time
when he was writing they formed no part of the Church’s liturgy. It is also difficult to suppose that, if Eusebius
had really known of Mss which omitted these words, some trace of the influence of these Mss would
not have survived in the textual tradition. Furthermore, it may well be that the true explanation why the
early Church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name, is that the words of xxviii.19 were
not originally meant by our Lord as a baptismal formula. He was not giving instructions about the actual
words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized
person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.5
Click on the link I have provided for ALL the fragment quotes in your video source in their FULL CONTEXT. http://www.torahresource.com/English….ism.pdfWhen are you going to learn Mikey?
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,18:55) For all: Especially take note of the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia at 2 minutes and 30 seconds into the video.
And the quote from Pope Benedict XVI located at 7 minutes, 45 seconds into the video.
peace and love,
mike
MikeHa Ha, you should check your resources before you make claims.
This is what the video quotes from the Catholics….
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.”Note the words “Baptismal Formula”, the text was not changed but only the way that the Catholics baptised. They changed their Baptismal practice from the “Name of Jesus” to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Again, where is the manuscript evidence?
You lose man.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,18:28) Keith, the war is lost for you my friend. We have one spurious scripture against many scriptures that show us clearly whose name people were baptized into. Do you really think the disciples just ignored Jesus' command and picked their own name in which to baptize people?
MikeWhat this proves to me is no matter what the scriptures say or what evidence that we bring you that the Trinity exists you will shut your eyes to it.
I am convinced now that if the scriptures had Jesus saying outright “I am God” you would claim the scripture is corrupt.
That’s it Mike, I am done with you. I now know I am wasting my time, because no matter what you will deny scriptures that disagree with you.
This is a scriptural debate and Matthew 28:19 is scripture, and unless you can present evidence it is not, but only claim it is corrupt, then you lose the war!
I used to have some serious debates with a guy named KJ here until one day he admitted he thought the scriptures were corrupt so I told him it is over because we are playing under two sets of rules. I hold to all of the scriptures as the word of God but you don't, therefore there is an advantage on your part because you can just simply claim “Foul” when the scripture does not agree with you by claiming it is fraud.
What if I said 1 Cor 8:6 the anti Jesus is God text that you guys misinterpret was not a scripture but was added by the “Arians” who were also part of the Church in those days?
You guys would be crying you lose man.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,18:37) Really Keith? Isn't it fairly obvious the “problem” we all have with it?
YepIt sure is obvious that you have a problem with scripture just like you do with many other proof text.
WJ
WJ
Jn 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.Jn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Jn 16:24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
there is something that do not fit in those verses,is it ??
Pierre
Keith said:
Quote Mike Ha Ha, you should check your resources before you make claims.
This is what the video quotes from the Catholics….
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.”Note the words “Baptismal Formula”, the text was not changed but only the way that the Catholics baptised. They changed their Baptismal practice from the “Name of Jesus” to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
AGAIN, WHERE IS THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE?
You lose man.
WJ
Keith,We have given Mike a DOUBLE whammy! I have shown that Mike's source cited fragment quotes out of context. Now you have shown that Mike couldn't even read the quote the way it is stated. It says that the Catholics changed their baptismal practice just as you said. This says nothing about the written biblical text. Mike is so over zealous to disprove something that he can't even assimilate what is actually being said in a given statemment. Will Mike ever learn?
You finished Mike off good Keith. Well done!
Jack
…The question, then, is how the tripartite phrase could be suspect as spurious in the first place? Since
there is not one scrap of manuscript evidence to suggest any variants in regard to the phrase, nor do any
of the early versions exclude it since a number of the early Church Fathers quote the verse with the tripartite
phrase; and since Eusebius, who does quote a shorter version, also quotes the full version with
the phrase, we have no real reason to question its authenticity. It would appear that those who do question
its authenticity do so on the grounds that (1) it represents a trinitarian baptismal formula which developed
later, in the 2nd Century or beyond, and (2) the consistent baptismal formula in Acts does employ
the name of Yeshua alone. But we have shown that there is no necessity to see a “baptismal
formula” in Matthew 28:19, nor some kind of developed “trinitarianism,” notwithstanding that some
have tried to read these later developments back into the text.
But this is not the heart of the issue. Assessments of whether a given text is authentic or not should
be made on the extant manuscript evidence, not on one’s theological presumptions or propensities.
Those who find themselves opposed to the later trinitarian doctrines formulated by the Christian Church
may easily suspect Matthew 28:19 of saying something it actually does not. Reading the text with antitrinitarian
glasses hampers objectivity. As noted above, there is no reason to think that Matthew’s tripartite
phrase flows from a developed trinitarianism. The juxtapositioning of titles such as “Father” or
“God” with “Son” or “Yeshua/Messiah” and “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” is common in the Apostolic Scriptures.
We may note the following by way of example:
26. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew in Albright and Freedman, eds. The Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1971), pp. 362–
63.I gave the wrong link for the source in the post immediately above. The correct link is http://www.torahresource.com/English….ism.pdf
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,07:49) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 03 2011,15:40) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 04 2011,07:23) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 03 2011,14:20) I have done what I can do to show you the truth by the scriptures. If you or they won't change, it is between you and they and God.
MartyThat is hillarious!
You say you use scriptures to show me the truth yet you reject the scripture.
This will be the kind of reaction you will get from others who you try to teach the scriptures as being the word of God yet out of the other side of your mouth you will say they are corrupt.
Good luck with that my friend.
WJ
Hi Keith:A corrupt scripture cannot possibly give you the truth, and since the Holy Ghost is not a “Third person of a Tri-une God” the scripture has to be corrupt.
Scripture that is given by the inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction…
Perhaps you would like to correct the Apostles telling them that they disobeyed Matthew 28:19 since they baptized in the name of Jesus and not in Tri-une formula.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyYou say the scripture is corrupt, but if you are open to correction from the scriptures you would see that Matthew 28:19 in no way contradicts what the Apostles did.
I have already shown you this but you have rejected it and the scripture.
WJ
Hi Keith:I am always open to correction if it is God correcting me through the scriptures, but I don't get it.
You say that Matthew 28:19 with the Tri-une formula does in no way contradict what the apostles did.
Did the Apostles baptize in the Tri-une formula?
Is the Holy Ghost the “Third Person” of a Tri-une God?
It is true that one of us needs to be open to correction, and I say “Father if I am wrong about Matthew 28:19 being corrupted” please correct me”. What about you Keith, is there a possibility that you could be the one that is wrong?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,06:26) …The question, then, is how the tripartite phrase could be suspect as spurious in the first place? Since
there is not one scrap of manuscript evidence to suggest any variants in regard to the phrase, nor do any
of the early versions exclude it since a number of the early Church Fathers quote the verse with the tripartite
phrase; and since Eusebius, who does quote a shorter version, also quotes the full version with
the phrase, we have no real reason to question its authenticity. It would appear that those who do question
its authenticity do so on the grounds that (1) it represents a trinitarian baptismal formula which developed
later, in the 2nd Century or beyond, and (2) the consistent baptismal formula in Acts does employ
the name of Yeshua alone. But we have shown that there is no necessity to see a “baptismal
formula” in Matthew 28:19, nor some kind of developed “trinitarianism,” notwithstanding that some
have tried to read these later developments back into the text.
But this is not the heart of the issue. Assessments of whether a given text is authentic or not should
be made on the extant manuscript evidence, not on one’s theological presumptions or propensities.
Those who find themselves opposed to the later trinitarian doctrines formulated by the Christian Church
may easily suspect Matthew 28:19 of saying something it actually does not. Reading the text with antitrinitarian
glasses hampers objectivity. As noted above, there is no reason to think that Matthew’s tripartite
phrase flows from a developed trinitarianism. The juxtapositioning of titles such as “Father” or
“God” with “Son” or “Yeshua/Messiah” and “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” is common in the Apostolic Scriptures.
We may note the following by way of example:
26. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew in Albright and Freedman, eds. The Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1971), pp. 362–
63.
Hi Jack:You have already admitted that if the Tri-une formula in Matthew 28:19 pertains to water baptism “the Trinitarians cannot win”. Isn't that what you said, Jack?
WJ knows that it is speaking of water baptism, and we all know that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
Marty
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
