Matthew 28:19 Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimP
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T

TimP

Guest
Changes in the Bible to promote the doctrine of the Trinity

I am a staunch believer in the Holy Bible as it was originally inspired to be written by its various authors. I believe every word was true. Unfortunately time has taken the original manuscripts from us. All we have are complete and partial copies of the originals.

Unfortunately also man has had an opportunity to change things in the Bible apparently in order to validate their own particular agendas.

As true Christians I firmly believe it is our responsibility to do as the Bereans were said to have done in the days of Paul. Study every word of the Scriptures to verify they are the truth. This will keep us from falling under the deceit of Satan and the false doctrines made up by men.

I have many questions, but the first concerns the words in the end of the book of Matthew when Jesus was about to ascended to heaven.

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

For centuries that Scripture has stood as it is. Catholic and Protestant churches alike use the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost statement for baptism and a number of other rites and rituals.

Eusebius, in early Christian, often called the Father of Church History, wrote extensively about Christianity. Absolutely none of his writings prior to the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD where he quotes the end of Matthew does he use the phrase that appears in the King James Bible. After the Council of Nicaea it appears in all of his writings.

Not a single New Testament manuscript found before the year 325 A.D. contains those words: and there or at least 17.

Versions of Matthew 28:19 written before 325 A.D. say: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name.

Up until the Council of Nicaea, the early Church was divided between those who believed in God and Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit being the working power of God, even though the Holy Spirit is addressed in the Pauline writings as "He". The other half of the Church believed in what we have been taught to call the Trinity.

Because the argument was so great an issue and threatened to fragment the Church, at the Council of Nicaea Emperor Constantine demanded a definite decision be made as to the makeup of the Godhead. The Trinitarian supporters won the argument and the result was recorded in the Creed of Nicaea.

Since the end of Matthew 28:19 changed after that fateful meeting we can only assume the Catholic Church inserted the words father, son, and Holy Ghost into the Scripture to validate their agenda. Because it was in every version of the Bible after that, the King James Version translated it into English. Most every Protestant Church has picked up and carried the same traditional words for centuries.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to include as much information as I could. There is much more evidence that can be presented if you have questions.

I would really like to know what your feelings are concerning this matter.

Should we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, or should we baptize in the name of Jesus? Everything in the New Testament tells us that we should do everything in the name of Jesus.

What is your opinion?
 
TimP said:
Changes in the Bible to promote the doctrine of the Trinity

I am a staunch believer in the Holy Bible as it was originally inspired to be written by its various authors. I believe every word was true. Unfortunately time has taken the original manuscripts from us. All we have are complete and partial copies of the originals.

Unfortunately also man has had an opportunity to change things in the Bible apparently in order to validate their own particular agendas.

As true Christians I firmly believe it is our responsibility to do as the Bereans were said to have done in the days of Paul. Study every word of the Scriptures to verify they are the truth. This will keep us from falling under the deceit of Satan and the false doctrines made up by men.

I have many questions, but the first concerns the words in the end of the book of Matthew when Jesus was about to ascended to heaven.

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

For centuries that Scripture has stood as it is. Catholic and Protestant churches alike use the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost statement for baptism and a number of other rites and rituals.

Eusebius, in early Christian, often called the Father of Church History, wrote extensively about Christianity. Absolutely none of his writings prior to the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD where he quotes the end of Matthew does he use the phrase that appears in the King James Bible. After the Council of Nicaea it appears in all of his writings.

Not a single New Testament manuscript found before the year 325 A.D. contains those words: and there or at least 17.

Versions of Matthew 28:19 written before 325 A.D. say: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name.

Up until the Council of Nicaea, the early Church was divided between those who believed in God and Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit being the working power of God, even though the Holy Spirit is addressed in the Pauline writings as "He". The other half of the Church believed in what we have been taught to call the Trinity.

Because the argument was so great an issue and threatened to fragment the Church, at the Council of Nicaea Emperor Constantine demanded a definite decision be made as to the makeup of the Godhead. The Trinitarian supporters won the argument and the result was recorded in the Creed of Nicaea.

Since the end of Matthew 28:19 changed after that fateful meeting we can only assume the Catholic Church inserted the words father, son, and Holy Ghost into the Scripture to validate their agenda. Because it was in every version of the Bible after that, the King James Version translated it into English. Most every Protestant Church has picked up and carried the same traditional words for centuries.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to include as much information as I could. There is much more evidence that can be presented if you have questions.

I would really like to know what your feelings are concerning this matter.

Should we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, or should we baptize in the name of Jesus? Everything in the New Testament tells us that we should do everything in the name of Jesus.

What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

Was this verse also inserted into scripture?
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In Christ, 1Christianwarrior316
 
http://christianchat.com/member.php?u=1062201Christianwarrior316 thanks for the response and question.

Apparently it was inserted into later manuscripts.

Here is an excerpt from an answer to that very question.

According to A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, this “is lacking in all Greek MSS except very late ones; in all ancient versions except the Latin; in about fifty Vulgate MSS, including the best, likewise in the majority of Greek and Latin Fathers. . . . It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries.”
 
The history you provided is an accurate account. My first clue that the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were not apart of the original text was largely due that there is none other scriptual witnesses that use this verbage anywhere else throughout the scriptures.

Avid study will bear out that the Son referenced the Father as the Spirit (John 4:24) and so we learn that the Spirit (Holy Spirit) was not given to him by measure, for he was filled with all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Jesus said: knowest thou not that the Father is in me? It is even apparent that the Father walked on the earth in the body of his dear Son who is the express image of his person.

The rule of thumb to scriptural theology is that there will always be another cross reference scripture that will support and validate the scripture considered.

He the Father has given him a name that is above every Name, of things in Heaven, on the Earth, and beneath the Earth. The Name Yeshua ha' Mashiac (Jesus the Christ) has all authority and power, it is the only Name that has the power to remit sin through water baptism as was taught by the holy Apostles of our Lord.

Without doubt, my post will draw the fire and displeasure of many who hold to their traditions, it matters not what any pope or Church father said, we still must consult sola scriptora as the sole authority, bearing in mind that no scripture is of any private interpetation.

Regards, Prophecyman
 
TimP said:
1Christianwarrior316 thanks for the response and question.

Apparently it was inserted into later manuscripts.

Here is an excerpt from an answer to that very question.

According to A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, this “is lacking in all Greek MSS except very late ones; in all ancient versions except the Latin; in about fifty Vulgate MSS, including the best, likewise in the majority of Greek and Latin Fathers. . . . It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries.”
Click to expand...

Apparently it was found in earlier manuscripts.
there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).

And here is the link you can got to check it out.
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/commadefense.pdf

In Christ, 1Christianwarrior316
 
Last edited:
TimP,

Matthew 28:19 communicates to baptize in the name (singular- not names) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Acts shows us Jesus is the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by showing us that the apostles baptized people in the name (singular) of Jesus.

If it was so important to change one scripture in Matthew communicating to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they would have changed the one in Acts that simply showed the apostles baptizing in the name of Jesus also. "Blessed is He who comes in the name of The Lord"- Jesus came in the name of The Lord.

So yeah, baptize people in the name of Jesus just like the apostles did. It's the same thing as baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
1Christianwarrior316,

Hello again.

I read the article, A Defense of the Johannine Comma, as you suggested and I was highly impressed. Mr. Dunkin is obviously a very intelligent and capable writer. His research is impeccable.

He did stupendously well in outlining the argument among early century Christians over the Trinity debate. He showed many examples of how that argument calls for insertions and deletions of the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5: 7. From the many different versions of the Scripture it is apparent these interpolations took place.

As he seeks to go further and further back in history, beyond about 300 A.D. his evidence becomes very much of the kind where, “it might have happened”, “could have happened”, “Logically follows”, etc. He seems to run out of solid evidence and step into supposition and opinion.

His most definite evidence for an early usage of the Johannine Comma before 300 A.D. is a quote from Cyprian a famous early Church father alluding to this passage. The man who made the quote was Cyprian, a North African Bishop. He is famous for his writings and is considered an authority by Church scholars.

However, his quote comes under scrutiny as shown in the following statement quoted by the author himself:

“If there had been evidence that the early MSS, and Fathers knew the text of the three heavenly witnesses, there would not have been the slightest doubt but that Cyprian here cites the original text; but the absence of all evidence for it till three centuries later shows that in Cyprian’s copy there must have been an interpolation…”

So even scholars tend to believe the quote made by Cyprian was added into his writings several centuries later in order to promote the anti-Arian, Trinity supporters.

So, since there is no solid textural evidence for this Scripture or the one in Matthew prior to 300 A.D. there seems to be no other choice but to believe some early Church writer wrote this Scripture in to promote the Trinitarian agenda.

Please understand this question and my responses are not in any way mean to denigrate the holy Word of God or His plan for salvation. I have no desire to create contention among my brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is a question that I have personally pondered and I wanted to ask the opinion of others.

Thank you very much for your interest and response. I learned a great deal from reading the article in regard to the early Trinitarian dispute, the factions, and individuals who were directly involved in it.

If anyone has any additional comments to add to this thread it would be greatly appreciated.

[FONT=&quot]In the love of Christ, TimP

[/FONT]
 
TimP said:
Changes in the Bible to promote the doctrine of the Trinity

I am a staunch believer in the Holy Bible as it was originally inspired to be written by its various authors. I believe every word was true. Unfortunately time has taken the original manuscripts from us. All we have are complete and partial copies of the originals.

Unfortunately also man has had an opportunity to change things in the Bible apparently in order to validate their own particular agendas.

As true Christians I firmly believe it is our responsibility to do as the Bereans were said to have done in the days of Paul. Study every word of the Scriptures to verify they are the truth. This will keep us from falling under the deceit of Satan and the false doctrines made up by men.

I have many questions, but the first concerns the words in the end of the book of Matthew when Jesus was about to ascended to heaven.

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

For centuries that Scripture has stood as it is. Catholic and Protestant churches alike use the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost statement for baptism and a number of other rites and rituals.

Eusebius, in early Christian, often called the Father of Church History, wrote extensively about Christianity. Absolutely none of his writings prior to the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD where he quotes the end of Matthew does he use the phrase that appears in the King James Bible. After the Council of Nicaea it appears in all of his writings.

Not a single New Testament manuscript found before the year 325 A.D. contains those words: and there or at least 17.

Versions of Matthew 28:19 written before 325 A.D. say: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name.

Up until the Council of Nicaea, the early Church was divided between those who believed in God and Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit being the working power of God, even though the Holy Spirit is addressed in the Pauline writings as "He". The other half of the Church believed in what we have been taught to call the Trinity.

Because the argument was so great an issue and threatened to fragment the Church, at the Council of Nicaea Emperor Constantine demanded a definite decision be made as to the makeup of the Godhead. The Trinitarian supporters won the argument and the result was recorded in the Creed of Nicaea.

Since the end of Matthew 28:19 changed after that fateful meeting we can only assume the Catholic Church inserted the words father, son, and Holy Ghost into the Scripture to validate their agenda. Because it was in every version of the Bible after that, the King James Version translated it into English. Most every Protestant Church has picked up and carried the same traditional words for centuries.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to include as much information as I could. There is much more evidence that can be presented if you have questions.

I would really like to know what your feelings are concerning this matter.

Should we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, or should we baptize in the name of Jesus? Everything in the New Testament tells us that we should do everything in the name of Jesus.

What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that we have original manuscripts dating from less than 50 years from the original writings, as well, we can recreate the new testament from 1st century church letters, quoting portions of scripture, word for word (minus only 6 verses).

Also look at Acts 8:14-17

14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

This passage make a point of stating that the Holy Spirit had not come upon any of those who believed and had been only been baptised in the name of Jesus. We are to follow what Jesus said and baptise in the name of all three.
 
14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

This passage make a point of stating that the Holy Spirit had not come upon any of those who believed and had been only been baptised in the name of Jesus. We are to follow what Jesus said and baptise in the name of all three.



CanadaNZ,

Thanks for the response.

The Jews up until this time despised Samaritans. They were not allowed to speak to or associate with them. When John and Peter, presumably along with the other apostles, heard that Jesus was being accepted in Samaria they could not believe it and had to see it with their own eyes.

When they arrived in Samaria they found the people had been accepting Jesus and being baptized in His name but had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

John and Peter laid hands upon them, prayed for them, and they received the Holy Spirit as a witness to the Jews that God was also including the Samaritans in his plan of salvation. Had something as outstanding and obvious as the reception of the Holy Spirit not happened the Jews would never have believed the Samaritans could receive Jesus.

Nothing in that scripture says anything about John and Peter adding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost baptismal phrase into their prayers.

Nothing I have found so far shows that any of the very earliest scripture texts include the Catholic baptismal formula. If you can direct me to anywhere I can find examples or references of pre 300 A.D. evidence for the Catholic baptismal formula I would greatly appreciate it.

In Christ's love,

TimP
 
That verse was changed by Catholic z some time ago they had it changed so that it could be agreement with their doctrine thats not the original verse.
 
TimP said:
14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

This passage make a point of stating that the Holy Spirit had not come upon any of those who believed and had been only been baptised in the name of Jesus. We are to follow what Jesus said and baptise in the name of all three.



CanadaNZ,

Thanks for the response.

The Jews up until this time despised Samaritans. They were not allowed to speak to or associate with them. When John and Peter, presumably along with the other apostles, heard that Jesus was being accepted in Samaria they could not believe it and had to see it with their own eyes.

When they arrived in Samaria they found the people had been accepting Jesus and being baptized in His name but had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

John and Peter laid hands upon them, prayed for them, and they received the Holy Spirit as a witness to the Jews that God was also including the Samaritans in his plan of salvation. Had something as outstanding and obvious as the reception of the Holy Spirit not happened the Jews would never have believed the Samaritans could receive Jesus.

Nothing in that scripture says anything about John and Peter adding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost baptismal phrase into their prayers.

Nothing I have found so far shows that any of the very earliest scripture texts include the Catholic baptismal formula. If you can direct me to anywhere I can find examples or references of pre 300 A.D. evidence for the Catholic baptismal formula I would greatly appreciate it.

In Christ's love,

TimP
Click to expand...

I don't know off hand about manuscript evidence for that one but will see what I can come up with. The thing to remember about the Acts passage is that they didn't just hear about Jesus, Philip (one of the 7 in chosen in Acts 6 and who also converted and baptised the Ethiopian) went to them and taught them. So Philip would likely have seen the apostles baptise people, but yet Luke makes a point of mentioning that they had ONLY been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Which seems to suggest that is not what should have happened and thus no Holy Spirit until Peter and John came to lay hands on them. I did find this and this guy makes an interesting point.

"When discussing the meaning and application of Matthew 28:19 with regard to Jesus' instructions concerning baptism, Oneness Pentecostals (and other Jesus' Name Baptism supporters) have traditionally appealed to the grammar of the text to make their case, challenging the mainstream Christian view on baptism based upon the use of a single word. Let's look at the verse:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
​
Notice that Jesus said "in the name" as opposed to "in the names." We insist that because the word "name" is singular and not plural, Jesus is suggesting that only one name, not three, is being spoken of. We have apparently lost sight of the proper use and interpretation of the common prepositional phrase. In the latter half of our verse, there are three prepositional phrases: 1) of the Father, 2) of the Son, and 3) of the Holy Ghost. The parallel structure allows the noun "name" to refer to all of the succeeding prepositional phrases. Therefore our verse would mean exactly the same thing if it were written the following way:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost."
​
There is no difference between the actual wording of Matthew 28:19 and the above illustration. If I were to ask you to take your Sunday School attendance sheet and give me the name of the teacher, the secretary, and the substitute you would not think for a moment that I was speaking of just one name. It would be clear that I wanted three names, even though I used the word "name" in singular form.
Furthermore, if the verse actually did say "names" instead of "name" it would imply two or more names for each prepositional phrase that follows. We would be potentially speaking of several names of the Father, several of the Son, and several of the Holy Ghost. This is not a matter of interpretation or even application. This is simply a matter of properly understanding the grammar of the text. The Bible is replete with examples of singular expressions referring to plural objects, so Matthew 28:19 is certainly not an anomaly. Here's just a few examples:
"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name (singular) of other gods (plural), neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Exodus 23:13)
"And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name (singular) of his two sons (plural) Mahlon and Chilion" (Ruth 1:2a)

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name (singular) shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (several names)." (Isaiah 9:6)
​
That last one is particularly noteworthy because it raises another point. Typically, after we "prove" that Jesus can only be speaking of one name, we embark on a biblical quest to define what that name actually is. After all, "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" are not names, but titles, right? The Bible suggests otherwise. Father is not simply a title, it's who God is. It's a Name of God. Not the Name, of course, but a biggie, nonetheless. Isaiah 9:6 (above) makes that point. But we never get that far. No, we insist that the singular name Jesus is speaking of must be discovered elsewhere, and so we ask the question, "What is the one name that Jesus is talking about that represents the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?" Here is where our argumentation goes from bad English to bad logic and poor hermeneutics."
 
Irenaeus (120-202 a.d.)
Against Heresies (Bk III, Chapter 17)
"...the Lord declares..." Go and teach all nations, BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..."

Are you suggesting Irenaeus had a time machine and somehow preached from a 325 a.d. new testament?
 
TimP said:
Changes in the Bible to promote the doctrine of the Trinity

I am a staunch believer in the Holy Bible as it was originally inspired to be written by its various authors. I believe every word was true. Unfortunately time has taken the original manuscripts from us. All we have are complete and partial copies of the originals.

Unfortunately also man has had an opportunity to change things in the Bible apparently in order to validate their own particular agendas.

As true Christians I firmly believe it is our responsibility to do as the Bereans were said to have done in the days of Paul. Study every word of the Scriptures to verify they are the truth. This will keep us from falling under the deceit of Satan and the false doctrines made up by men.

I have many questions, but the first concerns the words in the end of the book of Matthew when Jesus was about to ascended to heaven.

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

For centuries that Scripture has stood as it is. Catholic and Protestant churches alike use the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost statement for baptism and a number of other rites and rituals.

Eusebius, in early Christian, often called the Father of Church History, wrote extensively about Christianity. Absolutely none of his writings prior to the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD where he quotes the end of Matthew does he use the phrase that appears in the King James Bible. After the Council of Nicaea it appears in all of his writings.

Not a single New Testament manuscript found before the year 325 A.D. contains those words: and there or at least 17.

Versions of Matthew 28:19 written before 325 A.D. say: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name.

Up until the Council of Nicaea, the early Church was divided between those who believed in God and Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit being the working power of God, even though the Holy Spirit is addressed in the Pauline writings as "He". The other half of the Church believed in what we have been taught to call the Trinity.

Because the argument was so great an issue and threatened to fragment the Church, at the Council of Nicaea Emperor Constantine demanded a definite decision be made as to the makeup of the Godhead. The Trinitarian supporters won the argument and the result was recorded in the Creed of Nicaea.

Since the end of Matthew 28:19 changed after that fateful meeting we can only assume the Catholic Church inserted the words father, son, and Holy Ghost into the Scripture to validate their agenda. Because it was in every version of the Bible after that, the King James Version translated it into English. Most every Protestant Church has picked up and carried the same traditional words for centuries.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to include as much information as I could. There is much more evidence that can be presented if you have questions.

I would really like to know what your feelings are concerning this matter.

Should we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, or should we baptize in the name of Jesus? Everything in the New Testament tells us that we should do everything in the name of Jesus.

What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

The internet has contributed to a lot of really great things: the readily availability to view ancient manuscripts online, lexical resources, commentaries, and other various tools of the sort that allow us to study from the comfort of our own home. However, with the perks of the World Wide Web, comes also the adverse: anyone, regardless of credibility, can post anything, anywhere, and can make even the most outlandish comments, and it is most certainly true here.

You made the comment,
"Not a single New Testament manuscript found before the year 325 A.D. contains those words: and there or at least 17"
​
But ah, ah, ah, not so fast! Being a student of Textual Criticism, I know a bit about these manuscripts which you briefly made mention of. You fail to mention several key factors, however. While we certainly do have manuscripts prior to 325AD of the first Synoptic Gospel (Matthew), all of these manuscripts only feature portions of the Synoptic, and do not represent its completeness. For example, P1 (Papyrus 1) is a 3rd century manuscript that features only the first chapter of Matthew. P45, another 3rd c. manuscript, contains only the 20th, 21st, 25th, and 26th chapters of Matthew (as well as portions of Mark, Luke, John, and Acts). Also see:
P37 (4th c., 300AD) – Matthew 26
P53 (3rd c.) – Matthew 26
P64 (3rd c.) – Matthew 3; 5; 26
P70 (3rd c.) – Matthew 2; 3; 11; 12; 24
P77 (3rd c.) – Matthew 23
P101 (3rd c.) – Matthew 3; 4
P102 (4th c., 300AD) – Matthew 4
P103 (3rd c.) – Matthew 13; 14
P104 (2nd c.) – Matthew 21:34-37; 21:43, 21:45
P110 (4th c., 300AD) – Matthew 10:13-15; 25; 27
​
The reason why no single NT manuscript prior to 325AD contains the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," is because there are no surviving witnesses prior to 325AD with regards to the 28th chapter of Matthew. However, when assessing all the surviving manuscripts of Matthew 28 – every single one – what do we find? (1) Not a single Greek, Latin, Slovanic, Etheopian, Armenian, Georgian, or Coptic manuscript reads, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name,” rather, (2) all witnesses in regards to Matthew 28 favor the inclusion of the phrase, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

Furthermore, as mentioned on a previous thread, t[FONT=&quot]he argument you espouse for the exclusion of, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is based solely off Frederick Conybeare’s faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotation of Matthew 28:19.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Spiritual_Plague said:
Irenaeus (120-202 a.d.)
Against Heresies (Bk III, Chapter 17)
"...the Lord declares..." Go and teach all nations, BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..."

Are you suggesting Irenaeus had a time machine and somehow preached from a 325 a.d. new testament?
Click to expand...

Cool good to know :D
 
GraceBeUntoYou said:
You are simply wrong, see my response above.
Click to expand...

Im not wrong if u think im wrong thats ur opionion the original verse is similar to this Go teach all nations and baptize them in my name.but u think what u want and ill think what I want
 
Hello,
I would like to make a suggestion on understanding Mat 28:19. But first allow me to make a couple of observations.

1) Although the word "name" is in the singular, it is meant as a possession of each individual, as CanadaNz's post explains, and as Mar 1:29 agrees when speaking of Simon and Andrew's house. It is a house which belongs to Simon and it is a house which belongs to Andrew.

2) The words: "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" (KJV: Ghost) are all in the genative, and is thus denoted by the genative word "of". A quick study of grammar allows us to understand that the genative, in this case, means "ownership, possession, belonging to".

3) The words "baptizing into" (KJV: in (G1722)) literally means "submerging into something for a cleansing". Act 22:16 is the perfect example of this. As a sidenote, "into" is a more proper translation, as KJV translated it in Rom 6:3, 1Co 12:13, and Gal 3:27.


With this in mind, allow me to stretch out its fuller meaning. Note: I use "submerge" only as a clarification of what "baptise" means, and not as its replacement.

"...submerging them into the Father's name, and the Son's name, and the Holy Spirit's name for a cleansing".

Gal 3:27 gives us an insight as to what "submerge into" actually means here, and that is "...as many as have been submerged into Christ, have clothed themselves (middle voice) with Christ." This insight is not more clearly explained than in this verse: "I (the Son) am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." (Jon 14:20)

Before we can understand what it means to be submerged into one's name, we must first understand what the names, "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" means to us. For the sake of being brief, conclusively,

1) "Father" means that under the Gospel's salvational plan, God took upon Himself the title "Father". And by us professing that God is our Father, we are then acknowledging our appreciation of all which God has done for us in His salvational plan. So, to be baptized into the Father's name means that upon the mention of "Father", the children are also recognized, seeing that there cannot be a Father without children.

2) "Son" means that Jesus, through His shed blood, is the means by which we receive that salvation. And by saying that God the Word took upon Himself the title of "Son" through the flesh, we accept that salvation is only received by God the Redeemer, Jesus Christ. So, to be baptized into the Son's name means that upon the mention of "the Son", there is also acknowledgement of those whom the Lord Jesus Christ redeemed through God's salvational plan.

As an interesting sidenote, a literal translation of "the Lord Jesus Christ" is as follows: knowing that there is but one Lord, then it follows that the LORD of the OT became the Lord of the NT, seeing that the same word for "Lord" is used for both Jesus and God in the NT. In that case: the Lord Jesus Christ = Jehovah (the Lord), He is salvation (Jesus), He is our Redeemer (the Christ). Is not Jehohvah our Redeemer and Savior in the OT?

3) "Holy Spirit" means that we are not left as bastards, but that we, as children, are given an everlasting hope through a Sanctifer and a Comforter we know as the Holy Spirit. And by purposefully willing our will to the will of God through the guidence of the Spirit, we are then affirmed through God the Holy Spirit that God is not only our Father, but also our Redeemer. So, to be baptized into the Holy Spirit's name means that upon the mention of "Holy Spirit", there is the mention of the children also, in that He is sent by the LORD (Jehovah of the OT, Jesus of the NT) to be our Sanctifer and Comforter.

So, in summary, we are submerged into their respective names for a cleansing. We are in Jesus to be cleansed from sins through His blood. We are in the Father to be cleansed as new creatures in His eyes. We are in the Holy Spirit to be cleansed of fleshful lusts through obedience of His guidance.
 
theBibleisawsome said:
Im not wrong if u think im wrong thats ur opionion the original verse is similar to this Go teach all nations and baptize them in my name.but u think what u want and ill think what I want
Click to expand...

Okay, so you’re not “wrong,” perhaps maybe what I should have said is something more along the lines of “dead wrong.” Just because you “want” to believe something doesn’t make it any more truthful, much less, fact. The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no attestation whatsoever (aside from a vast number of selective half-quotes from various references, i.e., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, et al.), that the words “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” were a later addition of the 4th c. contra to what you fundy fringe, Constantine-conspiracy fanatics wish to charade. We have (1) an excellent testimony in early patristics with reference to the passage as it is found in every Critical Greek NT apparatus (i.e., Nestle-Aland 27, UBSGNT, CNTTS, Tischendorf),
“That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, ‘For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.’ And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book III, Chapter XVII

“The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: ‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Hippolytus, “Against the Heresy of One Noetus”

"For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘Teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’" – Tertullian, “On Baptism,” Chapter XIII

”After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father, and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” – Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” Chapter XXVI

“Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost. Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as the sent.” – Tertullian, “Prescription Against Heretics,” Chapter XX

“The Lord, when, after His resurrection, He sent forth His apostles, charges them, saying, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’” – Cyprian, Epistle XXIV:2

“For the Lord, after His resurrection, sending His disciples, instructed and taught them in what manner they ought to baptize, saying, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Cyprian, Epistle LXXII:5

“Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?” – Cyprian, Epistle LXXII:18

“And He laid His right hand upon me, and said, ‘Fear not; I am the First and the Last, and He that liveth and was dead; and, lo, I am living for evermore and I have the keys of death and of hell.’ Likewise in the Gospel, the Lord after His resurrection says to His disciples: ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’" – Cyprian, “Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews,” Chapter II:26

“This is the sure and immovable teaching and tradition, begun by our Lord after his resurrection from the dead, when he gave his apostles the command: ‘Go ye, make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’This then was preserved and fulfilled by his successors, the blessed apostles, and by all the bishops prior to ourselves who have died in the holy church and shared in its life; and it has lasted down to us, because it is firmer than the whole world. For, he said, ‘heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’” – Dionysius of Alexandria, “First Letter to Xystus”

“And His voice as it were the voice of many waters. The many waters are understood to be many peoples, or the gift of baptism that He sent forth by the apostles, saying: ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Victorinus of Rome, Commentary on the Apocalypse, Chapter I

“Seest thou that all through Scripture the Spirit is preached, and yet nowhere named a creature? And what can the impious have to say if the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" – Gregory Thaumaturgus, “A Sectional Confession of Faith,” Section XIII

”You may perhaps also be asking this: Since the Lord himself told the disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit , why does the Apostle employ here the name of Christ alone in baptism? For he says, ‘We have been baptized into Christ,’ although surely it should not be deemed a legitimate baptism unless it is in the name of the Trinity. But look at Paul’s good sense since, indeed, in the present passage he is not interested in discussing the subject of baptism as much as the death of Christ, in whose likeness he argues that we should die to sin and be buried with Christ.” – Origen, Commentary on Romans V:8

“Moreover, three times sent forth from the ark, flying about through the air over the water, it already signified the sacraments of our Church. Whence also the Lord Christ charges upon Peter, and moreover also upon the rest of His disciples, ‘Go and preach the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ That is, that that same Trinity which operated figuratively in Noah's days through the dove, now operates in the Church spiritually through the disciples.” – Anonymous, c. 255, “Against Novation”

“Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: ‘Go, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been used to be observed, yet it behooves us to consider that invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church.” – Anonymous, c. 250, “On Re-Baptism”

”Then Probus arising from the ground fell again upon the couch, and arising early he came to Paul, and finding him baptising many in the name of the life-giving Trinity, he said, ‘My lord Paul, if only I were worthy to receive baptism, behold the hour.’ Paul said to him, ‘Son, behold the water is ready for the cleansing of those that come to Christ.’ Therefore immediately taking off his garments, and Paul laying hold of him, he leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said, ‘We baptise thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ." – The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena, Section XXI

“The blessed Andrew weeping said, ‘What shall I say or what shall I speak concerning thy mercy, O God, that thus thou at all times cleavest to the lowly, and takest care for those in ignorance, being without arrogance and full of mercy?’ And having completed the prayer he baptised the maidens in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” –The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena, Section XXX

“Therefore the great Paul straightway taking her hand, went into the house of Philotheus, and baptised her in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Then taking bread also he gave her the Eucharist saying, Let this be to thee for a remission of sins and for a renewing of thy soul.” – The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena, Section XIV

“Since the Lord in His Gospel said, ‘Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt should have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out of doors, and to be trodden under foot of men.’ And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, ‘All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Lucius of Castra Galbae, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics

“The truth of our Mother the Catholic Church, brethren, hath always remained and still remains with us, and even especially in the Trinity of baptism, as our Lord says, ‘Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Since, then, we manifestly know that heretics have not either Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, they ought, when they come to the Church our Mother, truly to be born again and to be baptized; that the cancer which they had, and the anger of damnation, and the witchery of error, may be sanctified by the holy and heavenly laver.” – Munnulus of Girba, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics

“God and our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying: ‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Thus the false and wicked baptism of heretics must be rejected by us, and refuted with all detestation, from whose mouth is expressed poison, not life, not celestial grace, but blasphemy of the Trinity.” – Euchratius of Thenae, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics

“We know that heretics are worse than Gentiles. If, therefore, being converted, they should wish to come to the Lord, we have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, ‘Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons.’ And in another place: ‘Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Vincentius of Thibaris, c. 257, Seventh Council of Carthage: The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics
​
(2) Virtually every witness (including the major Greek codices) to the 28th chapter of Matthew supporting its inclusion; (3) copies of Tatian the Syrian’s 2nd c. Diatesseron, an early harmony of the Gospels, which contains the verbiage, (4) as well as the late first/early second century Christian treatise known as the Didache.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back