Matthew 28:19

This topic is empty.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

Author
Posts
October 14, 2014 at 11:26 pm#780573
Grasshopper
Participant
I decided to post on this topic because it has recently come to my attention that there is and I suppose always has been a controversy of validity surrounding particular scriptures, especially Matt 28:19.
I do not endorse or subscribe to any one particular Christian denomination. Denominations are divisive in nature and impede true Christian unity and brotherhood.
That being said, I want to acknowledge that the author of the page in which I’m posting from, is associating himself with Oneness Pentecostals. The author of the page’s denomination shouldn’t be a source of hindrance for any one, since the internet is full of these arguments about this subject…all from varied sources.
A Collection of Evidence Against the
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
by
Clinton D. Willis
[email protected]
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, 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 trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation 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, page 28:
“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 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 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.”
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
“The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted.”
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.”
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
“The Trinity.-…is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,…The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),…(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture…” “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19…This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius’s form of the (ancient) text (“in my name” rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church’s teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:…”
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
“Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61…Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula…is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas… the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed…” page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
“It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus,”…”
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under “Baptism,” says:
“Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
“Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity…”
James Moffett’s New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +.”
Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his “For Christ’s sake,” page 103 informs us of these facts: “All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake’s commentary was first published: “The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion.”
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.”
Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. “As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King’s College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule.” Dr Hall further, states: “More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, “In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ.” This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate (“On rebaptism”) shows.”
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. “There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: “Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, “Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name.”
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence” is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts.”
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.
“1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally.”
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord’s Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development.”
A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles’ Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles’ Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the “Great Commission of Jesus Christ.” Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
“While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed.”
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.
_____________________________________
It makes one wonder about the validity of baptisms performed with the trinity formula. Remember how Paul had to rebaptize the believers who were baptized into John’s baptism (John the Baptist), and that’s why they hadn’t received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul then proceeded to rebaptize them in the name of The Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:1-5)
Something to definitely ponder.
Grasshopper
October 15, 2014 at 5:57 am#780575
terraricca
Participant
hi grasshopper
but also what Paul did in those scriptures is he lay his hand upon them and only then they receive the holy spirit ,
for they first were introduced to the new message of Christ ,what seem they never heard of ,only John message of repentance
He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
Ac 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ac 19:6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Ac 19:7 There were about twelve men in all.
just for your info
October 16, 2014 at 3:42 pm#780636
NickHassan
Participant
Hi GH,
True.
A major deception and stumbling block to salvation
October 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm#780644
Grasshopper
Participant
A major, MAJOR stumbling block, indeed! The message of the Gospel…the message of Christ is beautiful in it’s simplicity. It’s rather straight forward and to the point. In a no-holds-barred sort of way, we were given the information that we needed to obtain salvation. We are to live righteous, holy lives free from sin as Christ did, and to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was sent by His Father and ours. Nowhere in scripture does it say that a condition of our salvation is that the Body of Christ has to deconstruct, and then reconstruct the words that were given to us by Jesus, himself. Then out of this we should then formulate new laws and or traditions concerning God and Christ based on that deconstruction/reconstruction process. We were NOT commissioned to do that; but it has been done, regardless of the lack of Holy instruction to do so. Creating doctrine based on assumptions is basically implying that what we were given by God and Christ is simply not good enough;that somehow WE (man) can improve on the wisdom of God ALMIGHTY by filling in the blanks and creating doctrine, that according to most denominational churches, are just as equal/weighty as the written scripture itself. If doctrine can’t hold water because of the holes, then it’s a tell-tale sign of man made doctrine based on filling in the blanks and of assumption.
There was a classic movie from the 80’s called “Stripes” starring Bill Murray.
In the film they had a Sgt. named Sgt. Hulka.
There was a scene where Sgt. Hulka was giving a training class to the new recruits and was using a chalkboard to write things on. He was giving examples for them on the subject of reactions in combat, etc…and told them that they should never ASSUME anything. He then proceeded to write the word “assume” on the board. He continued on to teach them “You should NEVER assume ANYTHING, because when you ASSUME, you make an ass out of you and me!”
This is how he wrote it on the board:
Ass/U/Me.
This scene has stayed in my memory for all these years….probably because of it’s truth!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Grasshopper
October 16, 2014 at 6:26 pm#780646
kerwin
Participant
Grasshopper,
A fair amount of that evidence is hearsay and I do not believe the Catholic Church was in existence in the second century as one source claims. I did not look through it all.
October 17, 2014 at 12:29 am#780659
Admin
Keymaster
Thanks for starting this topic Grasshopper.
I am in the process of merging the comment system attached to pages on this site with the forum.
This makes the site easier to use.
Usually each comment thread under each page is replaced by a new topic. In this case I have decided to make it the thread that is associated with this page because the topic is identical.
https://heavennet.net/writings/supporting-the-trinity-doctrine/matthew-28_19/
I deleted previous comments in the comment system (that were older than your topic) as they were not really about the topic anyway. This has preserved you as the topic owner.
If you go to this page you will notice your topic appended to the page in the place of the old comment system.
You may also be interested in reading that page.
October 17, 2014 at 7:14 am#780660
Grasshopper
Participant
Admin,
I appreciate that, thank you. Since I’m new, I am trying to catch up with as many things as I can to get familiarized with everything here 🙂
Thanks again
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grasshopper
October 17, 2014 at 7:32 am#780661
Grasshopper
Participant
I would like to acknowledge a typo that I didn’t catch. In the first paragraph of the topic/thread I started, I accidentally put Matt 29:19, when I meant Matt 28:19.
But I guess such things will happen from time to time when one chooses to post in the wee hours of the morning and when one’s dyslexia is well at hand. 😉
~~~~~~
Grassy
October 17, 2014 at 9:33 am#780664
Admin
Keymaster
I changed it for you. As the Admin, I have full editing rights.
Posts have an edit option, but that options expires after a while.
So if you catch any mistakes in time, you can fix them.
In the old forum, posts had an unlimited editing option. But that got abused by some and had to turn that off. Some people actually changed their posts when they were refuted instead of admitting they were wrong. Pretty sad.
October 17, 2014 at 11:32 am#780667
Grasshopper
Participant
Admin,
Thank you so very much for doing that for me 🙂
Yeah, I can imagine how the edit feature could be abused when some encounter the oh-so undesirable critique. Thanks again.
~~~~~~~
Grassy
October 18, 2014 at 11:40 am#780714
kerwin
Participant
To whomever it concerns,
The trinity tenet of the Catholic was not officially established until the fourth century when the First Council of Constantinople did so in 381. The Council of Nicea was only a few decades earlier in 325 and all it officially established in the Catholic Church was the Jesus was God. I am not even sure there was a Catholic Church before 325. So before 381 I do not see an organized effort to change the words in Matthew 28:19 to agree with the trinity teaching.
The Oneness Pentecostals believe that a person needs to literally be immersed while the one immersing them says “I baptize you in the name of Jesus”. I admit that I do not agree with their teaching and so the I see no difference between immersing people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and immersing them in the name of Jesus. The only thing that sounds odd my ear it that I would not think the Holy is that important to be mentioned though it is critical in its own place.
October 18, 2014 at 12:36 pm#780718
Proclaimer
Participant
If anyone thinks that a name is not important, then think again. Yeshua came in his Father’s name and we should do all in the name of Yeshua.
Mark 9:41
Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
By intentionally changing a name, you steer people away from the only name toward yourself or the person who owns the name. So in the name of the Trinity means in the name of those whose doctrine it is. In the case of the Trinity it is I think Athanasius, but most certainly the Roman Catholic Church which is built on his creed.
The Athanasian Creed
- Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic [Apostolic/Universal] Faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally.
- Now the Catholic Faith is this: We worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.
  For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
- Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the Father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty.
Now understand this.
Acts 20:30
29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.”
October 18, 2014 at 5:41 pm#780744
Grasshopper
Participant
To all,
Acts 4:12 (ESV)
12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
This is a rather key scripture, for it actually is quite revealing as to what name should be used. Because Jesus is now the Mediator between God and man, God is telling us in this verse that His name (Jesus’ name) is the ONLY NAME by which we can be saved. Basically this verse is telling us that even though Yahweh is our God and is Supreme, we cannot expect to call on HIS name (Yahweh) directly in order to receive salvation. Until the time when all things are finally reconciled back to God, Jesus is the ONLY one (as far as we, mankind, are concerned) that has ALL AUTHORITY. Hence, the “for there is no other name given UNDER heaven (that would mean here on Earth) AMONG MEN (for the record, that means US) by which we must be saved.”
Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. Anyone who chooses to bypass or diminish Jesus’ God given TOTAL authority, is by no means honoring God, the Father. Yes of course, Yahweh is our salvation, but as it says in Hebrews 1:2, “but in these last days he has spoken to us BY HIS SON, whom he appointed the HEIR OF ALL THINGS, through whom also he created the world.”(ESV); THIS is the “The Way” by which HE saves us. We must show regard and respect for the plan that God put forth, which is THROUGH HIS Son…ONLY.
~~~~~~~~~
Grasshopper
October 19, 2014 at 10:20 am#780774
kerwin
Participant
To whomever it may be concern,
When you have a teaching before you test it for falseness.
John 14:13Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
I do not see where the believe asked in Jesus name in this passage.
Acts 4:24-30Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: 25 who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. 29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, 30 by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
Are they disobeying Jesus’ teaching or in some way are they asking God for these things in Jesus’ name?
March 25, 2017 at 7:51 pm#818965
AndrewAD
Participant
I agree that Matt 28:19 is not teaching the trinity but have no doubt that it’s original to Matthew based on all manuscript evidence and the fact that many early Christians used this formula to baptize; the Didache,Justin Martyr,Irenaeus,Tertullian,and Hippolytes all taught this form of baptism as from apostolic tradition.
I’ve read where people say that Matt is the most Jewish of the gospels but this is very non Jewish.That stands to reason if you think Matt 28:19 is teaching trinity as later ratified in 381. But baptism in Jesus name is even more non-Jewish which could be why Matt has to teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father,the Son and the Holy Spirit.The nations,that is gentiles need to learn of all three to convert to Christianity and this formula gives the Father first place not Jesus.
And we don’t know how John baptized so baptism in Jesus name could’ve been to differentiate it from John’s form of baptism. And from what I’ve read of church history there were churches in various cities that had one tradition or the other and it created a controversy when Christianity became the official religion and the church decreed baptism in the threefold formula.
December 26, 2017 at 2:44 pm#820410
NickHassan
Participant
Hi,
Didache, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus are not verified followers of Christ Jesus
but more likely the founders of the false church.
December 26, 2017 at 4:15 pm#820411
NickHassan
Participant
Hi,
Of course the Didache was from a variety of teachers.
December 27, 2017 at 6:09 am#820417
NickHassan
Participant
Hi,
The Didache takes Spiritual teaching into ritualism with the breaking of bread becoming the Eucharist- a Word not found in scripture. It is intellectual, inconsistant and it lacks life. The beginnings of man’s religion.
Author
Posts

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Discussion

The Athanasian Creed

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Matthew 28:19

Discussion

The Athanasian Creed

Recent Replies

TOPICS

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account