- This topic is empty.
- Posts
To all,
This thread should probably be moved to forum titled “The Bible” as it is discussing a disagreement among manuscripts.
I personally do not see any difference between being immersed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as I do not see it as meaning the their given name. It could be their family name though I understand it rather to be their authority which is the same authority being derived from God.
I am going to venture to state that since the [url=http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php”Pershitta manuscripts translates it into the three name formula that is the way it was origionally written.
I do find it interesting that “Holy Spirit” can also be written “Spirit of Holiness”.
Hi Everone,
This how I think about the Holy Spirit sometimes, God has unlimited Holy Spirit, Jesus was given unlimited Holy Spirit from God, Jesus was/is a personification of the Logos of God. Jesus needed to complete his holy work which included preaching and teaching the Logos of God and the calvery in order to set up the spiritual ciruitry, if you will, of a continous communication link for all those who believe on Jesus' and Gods' name after he was no longer physically present. I mean to my my mind this is what jesus said just in the verbiage of a different time and place.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (kerwin @ Mar. 24 2011,23:26) To all, This thread should probably be moved to forum titled “The Bible” as it is discussing a disagreement among manuscripts.
KerwinThat is not true because there are no variations or disagreements in the MSS.
Every extant MSS (over 5000) has Matthew 28:19 in its tripart form.
So Matt 28:19 is scripture.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,01:55) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 24 2011,23:26) To all, This thread should probably be moved to forum titled “The Bible” as it is discussing a disagreement among manuscripts.
KerwinThat is not true because there are no variations or disagreements in the MSS.
Every extant MSS (over 5000) has Matthew 28:19 in its tripart form.
So Matt 28:19 is scripture.
WJ
Keith,Correct! There are no variant manuscripts and so this topic is right where it belongs.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,20:55) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 24 2011,23:26) To all, This thread should probably be moved to forum titled “The Bible” as it is discussing a disagreement among manuscripts.
KerwinThat is not true because there are no variations or disagreements in the MSS.
Every extant MSS (over 5000) has Matthew 28:19 in its tripart form.
So Matt 28:19 is scripture.
WJ
There may be no manuscripts available today but there is creditable evidence that there were in the past.It is irrelevant since either variation could be interpreted in order to support the tenets that are being debated.
To all;
These may be what Pierre spoke of in another thread.
Quote Where the Tetragrammaton occurs in Tanakh quotations, instead one finds a single Hebrew He (ה) except in one place where the word “ha-shem” (השם, the name) is spelled out. There are some interesting readings of Matthew in The Touchstone.[9] Matt 12:37 “According to your words you will be judged, and according to your deeds you will be convicted.”
Matt 24:40-41 “40 Then if there shall be two ploughing in a field, one righteous and the other evil, the one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at a mill; one will be taken and the other left. This is because the angels at the end of the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the world and will separate the good from the evil.”
Matt 28:9 “As they were going Jesus passed before them saying: 'May the Name deliver you.'”
Matt 28:19-20 “Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.”
Mark 9:20-28 is placed into the text of Matthew between Matt 17:17 and 17:19. Matt 17:18 is omitted.[10]While the quotations in Shem Tov's The Touchstone, which are interspersed in his own commentary, diverge from the canonical text of Matthew, the text of the Münster Matthew and the Du Tillet Matthew are significantly very close to it in many passages.
Quote The Shem Tov Matthew (or Shem Tob's Matthew) consists of a complete text of Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language found interspersed among anti-Christian commentary in the 12th volume of a polemical treatise The Touchstone (c.1380-85) by Shem Tov ben Isaac ben Shaprut (Ibn Shaprut),… Here is my source.
Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2012,16:37) To all; These may be what Pierre spoke of in another thread.
Quote Where the Tetragrammaton occurs in Tanakh quotations, instead one finds a single Hebrew He (ה) except in one place where the word “ha-shem” (השם, the name) is spelled out. There are some interesting readings of Matthew in The Touchstone.[9] Matt 12:37 “According to your words you will be judged, and according to your deeds you will be convicted.”
Matt 24:40-41 “40 Then if there shall be two ploughing in a field, one righteous and the other evil, the one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at a mill; one will be taken and the other left. This is because the angels at the end of the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the world and will separate the good from the evil.”
Matt 28:9 “As they were going Jesus passed before them saying: 'May the Name deliver you.'”
Matt 28:19-20 “Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.”
Mark 9:20-28 is placed into the text of Matthew between Matt 17:17 and 17:19. Matt 17:18 is omitted.[10]While the quotations in Shem Tov's The Touchstone, which are interspersed in his own commentary, diverge from the canonical text of Matthew, the text of the Münster Matthew and the Du Tillet Matthew are significantly very close to it in many passages.
Quote The Shem Tov Matthew (or Shem Tob's Matthew) consists of a complete text of Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language found interspersed among anti-Christian commentary in the 12th volume of a polemical treatise The Touchstone (c.1380-85) by Shem Tov ben Isaac ben Shaprut (Ibn Shaprut),… Here is my source.
Kyes it is
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,07:42) Hi All The accusation that the Trinity is not found in scriptures is false and though the word “Trinity” is not found in scriptures the concept is.
ATs, (Anti-Trinitarians) love to call on this fallacy in order to discredit the truth found in the scriptures concerning the Trinitarian view.
The Trinitarians believe that the view is scriptural and is based on the acceptance of the Holy Scriptures as a whole therefore accepting the whole council of God.
Most ATs believe in a Trinity whether they admit it or not. If you ask them if they believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and are they separate in person or being, they will claim yes. The difference is they do not believe that they all share the same attributes as God; even though there is no evidence that there is any difference in the three in their respective nature or ontology.
Those who claim the Holy Spirit is the Father, have a long uphill climb Biblically to prove their theory based on the number of scriptures mentioning their separate identities.
Matthew 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: KJVGo therefore* and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NKJV
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. NLT
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in* the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NIV
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NASB
Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, NWT
The above translations all render Matt 28:19 the same. As far as I can tell all the translations on BGW.com and BLB.org translate it the same way. Even the NWT which is notably a version apposed to the Trinity and also known for its obvious biased paraphrase of the Greek text, translates it the same.
It has been claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea, c. 263–339 had an original copy of Matthew which did not contain the verse. However there is no such evidence and can only be considered as a fabrication made by the ATs. It would also contradict the fact that Eusebius was a prominent figure at the Council of Nicene. Not to mention his own confession in his personal Letter to the Church of Cesarea…
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
Not to mention that many Church Fathers quoted the verse like Ignatius (c. 35–107), Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Tertullian (c. 160–225) to mention a few. Others alluded to the three.
There is overwhelming evidence that proves that Matthew 28:19 is authentic including the fact it is found in every extant Greek Biblical manuscript…
It is not uncommon to hear the notion that the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19 is suspect on text critical grounds, but when one consults the data itself, such claims are entirely unfounded. Every extant Greek biblical manuscript that contains this verse of Matthew has the tripartite phrase.13 One would expect that if, indeed, Matthew’s original (whether one presumes a Greek or Hebrew original, or both) did not include the tripartite phrase, that at least some early witnesses to this original would have remained. But not one single witness, early or late, gives evidence that 28:19 ever existed without the tripartite phrase. When we look at the versions the same situation obtains. The Syriac Peshitta (in all of its extant witnesses), the Vulgate, the Coptic, the Slovak versions—all have the tripartite phrase. Plummer’s conclusion is therefore warranted: It is incredible that an interpolation of this character can have been made in the text of Mt. without leaving a trace of its unauthenticity in a single MS. or Version. The evidence for its genuineness is overwhelming.14 (Emphasis mine) Source
As if that is not enough damaging evidence against the ATs, the nail in the coffin is the Didache contains the tripartite phrase..
Ploughman, apparently following F. C. Conybeare, has questioned the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, but most scholars of New Testament textual criticism accept the authenticity of the passage, since “there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula, and the extant form of the passage is attested in the Didache[72] and other patristic works of the first and second centuries: Ignatius,[73] Tertullian,[74] Hippolytus,[75] Cyprian,[76] and Gregory Thaumaturgus”. ‘Wikipedia
Though the date of the Didache is debated, most scholars would put it between 90 and 120 CE with some suggesting an even earlier date.
The Trinity is here to stay, and Matthew 28:19 is unambiguous evidence that the early Apostles and Church Fathers believed in a Trinity. Unfortunately for the ATs the evidence overwhelmingly support the Holy Scriptures as a Trinitarian book, even if they do not believe the three are “One”, they must accept this Bible truth or get their white out and blot out the verse in their Christology.
Anyone care to comment?
Blessings WJ
If those words were authentic, why is there not any record in the scriptures of the first century believers carrying out those words?In Acts 2 and beyond we see baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.
In the epistles we see doing all in the name of the lord Jesus.
Not one instance of a triune baptism.
Evidently, some early church fathers quoted Matthew 18:19 without the trinitarian formula in their quote. They must have had manuscripts which predated ours that did not have the “trinity come lately” formula in it.
Those trinitarian words are basically a forgery.
barley
Barley;
Quote Evidently, some early church fathers quoted Matthew 18:19 without the trinitarian formula in their quote. They must have had manuscripts which predated ours that did not have the “trinity come lately” formula in it. Interesting claim; do you have their words to support it?
Quote (kerwin @ June 01 2012,22:27) Barley; Quote Evidently, some early church fathers quoted Matthew 18:19 without the trinitarian formula in their quote. They must have had manuscripts which predated ours that did not have the “trinity come lately” formula in it. Interesting claim; do you have their words to support it?
Hi Kerwin:Apparently, all of the manuscripts available have the tri-une formula, and so, if you are asking about evidence of this type, there is probably is not.
However, I know that this scripture has been altered, because Jesus calls God his Father, and it is the Holy Spirit that overshadowed the virgin Mary, and therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a “third person” but is God's Spirit. Jesus is the Son of God, not the “Son of a third person of a Tri-une God”.
Also, Jesus stated that all power and authority had been given unto him upon his resurrection in this scripture. Why would he then command his disciples to go and baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost?
If Jesus used the Tri-une formula, it should be consistent in other scriptures, and it is not. Here is how it is in Luke:
Quote Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And finally, no one who baptized in the Acts of the Apostles used the Tri-une formula.
Love in Christ,
Marty
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
