Seems Revalations and Book of Enoc are seldom/never preached about today.

  • 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.
Sep 9, 2018
822
451
63
65
Illinois
#21
People that enjoy so-called 'feel-good' churches (like Joel Olsteen, et al) aren't going to feel so good when they stand before God without the Blood covering of the Lord Jesus Christ. No, they won't feel so good at all in the lake of fire.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
6,198
1,491
113
#22
...

And these SEEKER FRIENDLY CHURCHES absolutely DO NOT PREACH anything that condemns their congregation. These people are on their way to eternal damnation and these preachers are DOING NOTHING!!

And, if you are a part of the SEEKER FRIENDLY MOVEMENT, You are of the Adversary!!

Preaching the LOVE OF CHRIST only makes you feel the happy butterflies.
But preaching right from wrong SAVES SOULS!!

And if you do not like what I state...then you have no clue of scripture.
Even Paul in his GRACE theme preached the Holy Spirit will condemn you when you sin directly against God!!

Therefore, many preachers NEED TO GROW a backbone and get a CLUE!!
While I agree that SOME people preach a soft, affirming message unlikely to bring conviction. However, your post is broad-brushing, condemning and self-righteous, and you are employing the fallacy of guilt by association.
 

Deade

Called of God
Dec 17, 2017
4,649
2,308
113
72
#23
My Grandfather was part of new up and coming movements that are now well known established church organizations like the UPC, The Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ, and has served as presbyter for others covering several states throughout the Midwest. I was taught under their tutelage and direction.
This means you are oneness, right? giggle.gif
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#24
While I agree that SOME people preach a soft, affirming message unlikely to bring conviction. However, your post is broad-brushing, condemning and self-righteous, and you are employing the fallacy of guilt by association.


The I take it you have never been a part of the door knocking, neighborhood scanning, and the broad questions pertaining to which part of church service did i most not enjoy?

And if you ever have that opportunity, look at the list of excuses why sinners don't want to go to church.

Even YOU will be on here making the similar claim as I have...well...that is unless you are a sinner who hates being condemned under church influence via the power of God!!
 
Oct 7, 2018
18
5
3
#25
Wait, whut?

Critical review because we teach from the Holy Bible? This has to be some kind of joke right?

OP mentions Revelation in Title, but not in comment? Revelation is quite often taught, referred to in Sermons........sooooo

Still, this is a joke, right?
So........................... unless you out to score points with your buddies for slamming a new person here, why would you say JOKE?
I'm serious, the last time I remember any church I been to preaching on Revelations was about 10 years ago. An that is about 25-30 different churches and even asking pastors about it. I go every Sunday (sad the Sundat night services are very few and even then 3-5 ppl show up, and Wed night is about gone as well. Truly sad.)
Because where you live and I live is very different.
Heck, even got 1 church I went to for 6mo. Pastor never did tithing/offering plate. Asked him about it and he said "he feels people don't like that and he will never even preach on tithing". then I left that one.
 
Jul 18, 2017
6,334
889
113
#26
...We are in the end days for sure...
There's your answer. It is because we are living towards the end of the Church Age, there is a tremendous amount of apostasy in Christendom. One of the symptoms is failure to preach the true and full Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Another is to avoid teaching Bible doctrines. A third is to avoid teaching on Bible prophecies.

Evidently many preachers are not even bothering to study the Word, but are plagiarizing the sermons produced by others.
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#27
This means you are oneness, right? View attachment 189199

It means I believe in the THREE specific manifestastions, but I believe God is only ONE BEING who is capable of being all THREE. In other words, I understand that God is God and He is capable of being ALL THREE in ONE.
Scripture does claim:
ONE GOD

First Commandment even specifies singularity:
have no other gods before ME (singular as it gets)

Even the Hebrews and today's Jews will tell you that Elohim means ONE BEING, not as many AMERICAN PREACHERS choose to ignore the Hebrew/Jew and claim it means many.

Cracks me up when we have actual Hebrew text and watch American pastors translate it for their own purpose by IGNORING what the Hebrew/Jew specified it actually means.

Can we say these preachers are crazy for not paying attention or ignoring what the Hebrew/Jew claims?

Nah, but we can say they have an agenda.

And if you read the BIBLE...it was the ONE BEING ELOHIM who made Himself known to the Hebrew and HAS NEVER made Himself known in person to some American preacher!!

I believe those who saw Him, not those who want to create their own meaning :)
 
Sep 4, 2013
22,460
757
113
#29
My late Grandfather and Father were both evangelists, preachers, biblical teachers who taught-preached from the west coast to the east coast and beyond American borders. They taught in what is now today's established biblical colleges from Texas to Florida. My Grandfather was part of new up and coming movements that are now well known established church organizations like the UPC, The Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ, and has served as presbyter for others covering several states throughout the Midwest. I was taught under their tutelage and direction. They preached fire and brimstone and that riding the altar is better than assuming anything else these false antichrist's spew out behind pulpits.

And with that being said, let's look at what today is known as the SEEKER FRIENDLY CHURCHES!!

You scan a neighborhood going door to door asking what ticks you off most about church?

They get a list consisting of:
I don't like feeling guilty
I don't like being called out for cheating on my wife
I don't like being called out for abusing my wife and children
and the list is endless...

And these SEEKER FRIENDLY CHURCHES absolutely DO NOT PREACH anything that condemns their congregation. These people are on their way to eternal damnation and these preachers are DOING NOTHING!!

And, if you are a part of the SEEKER FRIENDLY MOVEMENT, You are of the Adversary!!

Preaching the LOVE OF CHRIST only makes you feel the happy butterflies.
But preaching right from wrong SAVES SOULS!!

And if you do not like what I state...then you have no clue of scripture.
Even Paul in his GRACE theme preached the Holy Spirit will condemn you when you sin directly against God!!

Therefore, many preachers NEED TO GROW a backbone and get a CLUE!!

Your first comment was a blanked attack on all Preachers.......not just certain ones. And don't bother bragging about how many Preachers you have in your family, because you won't ever come close to mine................

Never heard of that particular group you are referring to......The Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ .... so won't comment on it. Sounds like a fringe element to me. As for fire and brimstone, shoot, the Southern Baptist have been preaching that FOR EVER!

Yes, there are some "feel good" churches out there, and their Preachers are more of the "God wants you to be wealthy" type than Bible Preachers. BUT THEY are NOT the NORM. They are the exception. And you SHOULD clarify such as these, if they are who you are referring to, rather than a blanket attack on all Preachers that aren't in whatever group that is you mentioned.

God save us from such as you! When preaching Jesus becomes not acceptable, then the Church is finished! As for the Apostle Paul, and his teachings, he spent his life preaching/teaching the LOVE OF GOD/CHRIST!

I suspect you are not from the Christian movement...........maybe we can discover a wee bit more this way:

1) Do you believe in the Holy Trinity
2) Do you believe in the Divinity of Christ
3) Do you know the difference between Saved and Sanctified belivers

.................

You don't like what I say............tough.......I will not stand silent when someone openly attacks God fearing men and women who have dedicated their lives to serving God. And there should be a LONG LINE of other members here who are right there with me. We are told to "defend the Faith." And the anointed Preachers/Teachers of the Gospel ARE of the FAITH.
 
Sep 4, 2013
22,460
757
113
#30
Beliefs[edit]
In doctrine, the ALJC is similar to other Oneness Pentecostal churches. They believe in the oneness of God. The basic and fundamental doctrine of the Organization is the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance (Acts 2:4,38; John 3:5). [4]


Ok, that gives some idea....................

now that I understand that about your group........hmm..............

No need to waste time with you........the Ignore List grows
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#31
The word 'Elohim' is plural, yet being used to describe a single entity. What does that say? It says that the Trinity is taught in a single word.


Yahweh is Elohim

There are plenty of places in the Scriptures where Yahweh is referred to as "Elohim!"

Elohim a Hebrew word signifying one as God or signifying generally the one true God;

This is as clear as it gets that the HEBREWS wrote Elohim as only ONE GOD, not many. and they used Yahweh to describe who Elohim was.
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#32
Beliefs[edit]
In doctrine, the ALJC is similar to other Oneness Pentecostal churches. They believe in the oneness of God. The basic and fundamental doctrine of the Organization is the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance (Acts 2:4,38; John 3:5). [4]


Ok, that gives some idea....................

now that I understand that about your group........hmm..............

No need to waste time with you........the Ignore List grows

Good because i can provide proof where the scripture was tampered and the late Pope John reveals how the Catholics changed Matthew 28:19 from baptizing in NAME of Yeshua (Jesus) to the trinity in the second century AFTER THE FIRST CHURCH was gone!!
 
Oct 7, 2018
18
5
3
#33
Seriously? Hating on Preachers? Those men and women who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Word of God and given their lives to His Ministry? Those are the people you want to hate on?
So you sound like you are backing every pastor based on they study the bible right?
I see mass apostate pastors in the region where I live. They fly the rainbow flag and preach homosexuals are good and going to heaven and allow them to even preach and teach in the church. They are so wrong for this. This is not all pastors, but some and it is deeply troubling. These are the posters I deeply pray for.

When I say 'End of Days' look around. Big events that was news worthy was once a year, then 2x a year and so on, now days they are once a day. Today we got Communist working to tear America apart unless I'm just misreading their intent. Jesus said 'he would return soon' (soon=X find X.). Yes, only God knows the time. I find it odd that Mark 13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Oddly enough the Jesus could have easily said "But about that time no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." But he did not. Which leaves the year and month. Yes, all speculation. However Jesus says exactly what needs to be said and never without reason. The lack of year and month popped out to me as I was reading the scripture.
If you really want to know, take it to the Lord in prayer and do a fast on the subject till you get an answer.

Matthew 16:1-3: The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,'and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."

Global events are increasing exponentially which worries me many Christians will not be ready for hard times because many sermons are sugar coated for the masses. Take time to look around what is going on, observe the people in the church what they talk about, do and such. Then take a hard look at them when hard times hits will they do well or get washed away. I do this a lot, I would guess from the churches I go to that maybe %20 would endure even the start of the Tribulation.

So the preaching or Revelations and study of The Book of Enoc while look at the world today would greatly help.

I cry out to God often about the 'falling away' that is coming.
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
 
Oct 7, 2018
18
5
3
#34
People that enjoy so-called 'feel-good' churches (like Joel Olsteen, et al) aren't going to feel so good when they stand before God without the Blood covering of the Lord Jesus Christ. No, they won't feel so good at all in the lake of fire.
Joel Olsteen is what I call a CINO (Christian In Name Only) big time .
He is all about wanting people to empower themselves instead of turning to God. I think he is a bit of a humanist as well.
 
Sep 8, 2018
388
129
43
#35
Good because i can provide proof where the scripture was tampered and the late Pope John reveals how the Catholics changed Matthew 28:19 from baptizing in NAME of Yeshua (Jesus) to the trinity in the second century AFTER THE FIRST CHURCH was gone!!
I want to see this proof.

Im not holding my breath though. If you could prove it, are you aware of the consequences? That would open the door for "Yea, hath God saith?" If Matthew 28:19 is wrong, what other verses are wrong?
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#36
I want to see this proof.

Im not holding my breath though. If you could prove it, are you aware of the consequences? That would open the door for "Yea, hath God saith?" If Matthew 28:19 is wrong, what other verses are wrong?


THIS IS 3 PAGES LONG:


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:..."
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#37
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."
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#38
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."
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#39
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.
 

rlm68

Active member
Jul 23, 2018
280
82
28
#40
But here are the specifics that the late Pope used from another who was Pope before him...at this time this pope was only a cardinal-bishop:

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.


But look at the specifics he claims here:

1. 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.

2. The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore (((((did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33))))).....this is why we read Peter and Paul baptizing in Jesus (Yeshua's NAME only in Book of Acts) = First original church)

3. It was rather as the evidence proves a (((((later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated))))). Very few know about these historical facts.



he claims it was a complete FABRICATION!! in other words, A LIE!!