Matthew 28:19 Question

[tribesman]

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

What do you make out of the arguments, with facts backed up with sources, that GraceBeUntoYou made in posts #15 and #20? You just completely ignore that and say "Im not wrong"?

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

What do you make out of the arguments, with facts backed up with sources, that GraceBeUntoYou made in posts #15 and #20? You just completely ignore that and say "Im not wrong"?

Oh, I'm not done yet, there's more incoming!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'm non-/anti-Trinitarian and I've never challenged the textual integrity of Matthew 28:19. And even though the Comma Johanneum is more vulnerable to textual criticism, I don't exclude it as non-canonical. It's a substantial textual variation, IMHO.

To attack various areas of the text would require one to engage in a thorough textual criticism of ALL MSS to be consistent. No cherry picking with unfounded accusations.

That said, Jesus knew what He was talking about and so did the Apostles according to the six scriptural examples of water baptism. They were all done with some form of "Lord Jesus Christ". "For God hath made him (Jesus) both Lord and Christ."

No need for Triune baptism when there's no Trinity of three "persons".

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

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

Copyists, as they work with materials, will introduce what can be identified as “errors of the pen,” or “errors of the eye.” As a manuscript is dictated, a scribe may mishear, or misread (and on some occasions even conform) a text, and as a result, miscopy it. However, it’s possible for the textual critic to discover these errors by the comparison of texts through different copyist traditions, as I have taken the liberty to do (click here for actual link to the diagram as seen below):

*Please note that the witnesses mentioned here for the inclusion of the Trinitarian verbiage make up only a small sampling, and does not feature a vast number of miniscules, lectionaries, early writings by anonymous authors, or early treatises (i.e., Apostolic Constitutions, Didache, et al.). For a more concise listing, please refer to:
List of New Testament papyri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of New Testament uncials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of New Testament minuscules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Miniscules 1-1000)
List of New Testament minuscules (1001 to 2000) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Miniscules 1001-2000)
List of New Testament minuscules (2001-) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Miniscules 2001-)
List of New Testament lectionaries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As seen above, the Trinitarian baptismal verbiage has the strongest transmission throughout time and throughout the various geographical locales/text-types, and is found in the writings of some very important historical figures, including Eusebius himself (more particularly in Contra Marcellum I.1.9, I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; Theophania 4.8; Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese), and more importantly, his predecessors which pre-date the earliest known copy of Matthew 28:19 as it is found in Codex Vaticanus (symbolism “B”). Not only is this verbiage contained through the various text-types, but there are also no alternative readings found in the Byzantine, Alexandrian, or Western traditions, and this is absolutely critical. Secondarily, notice Eusebius also quotes this passage in other forms with absolutely no reference to the alternatively espoused reading (“in My name”), or the traditional Trinitarian baptismal formulae (see Demonstratio Evangelica I.3, I.5, I.6). These two factors could indicate one of two possiblities:

1.) Eusebius was simply paraphrasing as he often times did.
​

2.) Considering Eusebius was from Cæsarea, he may have been using a Cæsarean style text, which often deviates from the other three text-types.
​

There are absolutely no Cæsarean witnesses of Matthew 28:19 (Note: the “Other” column in the diagram above lists both, Cæsarean, and eclectic manuscripts, as well as early historical figures from that general area who cite the passage) discovered to the present date which indicate that Eusebius was citing a Cæsarean text-type. All Cæsarean versions of Matthew 28:19 are in complete agreement with the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western text-types, thus, the first scenario seems to fit best.

The more manuscripts we have for a particular work, the more textual variants. For example, if we had only one manuscript of the New Testament, we would have absolutely no variants. But if we had only one manuscript of the NT, how much confidence would we have to its reliability, and authenticity?

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

The screenshot of the diagram was working after I had originally posted, but now there seems to be some kind of issue, and won't load. None the less, there is a link to the diagram in the original post: http://clintjordan.zymichost.com/Matthew28_19_TextualReadingbyLocale.html

 

[dishchat]

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?

There were any christians who baptised in name of Father ,son, Holy Gost. All were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. So we must be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ like the christians in the Bible.

 

[Mark51]

At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” A particular name may be “called upon” a person, city, or building. Jacob, when adopting Joseph’s sons as his own, stated: “Let my name be called upon them and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac.” (Genesis 48:16; see also Isaiah 4:1; 44:5.) Jehovah’s name being called on the Israelites indicated that they were his people.-Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:7; 63:19; Daniel 9:19.

Jehovah also placed his name on Jerusalem and the temple, thereby accepting them as the rightful center of his worship. (2vKings 21:4,　7) Joab chose not to complete the capture of Rabbah in order not to have his name called upon that city, that is, so as not to be credited with its capture.-2Samuel 12:28.

A person dying without leaving behind male offspring had his name “taken away,” as it were. (Numbers 27:4; 2 Samuel 18:18) Therefore, the arrangement of brother-in-law marriage outlined by the Mosaic Law served to preserve the name of the dead man. (Deuteronomy 25:5,　6) On the other hand, the destruction of a nation, people, or family meant the wiping out of their name.-Deuteronomy 7:24; 9:14; Joshua 7:9; 1 Sa 24:21; Psalms 9:5.

To speak or to act ‘in the name of’ another denoted doing so as a representative of that one. (Exodus 5:23; Deuteronomy 10:8; 18:5, 7, 19-22; 1 Samuel 17:45; Ester 3:12; 8:8,　10) Similarly, to receive a person in the name of someone would indicate a recognition of that one.

When, in English, we say, “in the name of the law,” or “in the name of common sense,” we have no reference to a person as such. By “name” in these expressions we mean ‘what the law stands for or its authority’ and ‘what common sense represents or calls for.’ The Greek term for “name” (o'no·ma) also can have this sense.

To be baptized “in the name…of the holy spirit” means acknowledging the function and activity of the holy spirit. The holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force, with which he accomplishes his purposes. Jesus told his followers: “I will request the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, the spirit of the truth.” (John 14:16,　17) Jesus further told them: “You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) By means of the holy spirit, Jehovah also inspired the writing of the Bible: “Prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21) So we acknowledge the role of the holy spirit when we study the Bible. Another way we acknowledge the holy spirit is by asking Jehovah to help us produce “the fruitage of the spirit,” which is “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.”-Galatians 5:22,　23.

Hence baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ implies recognition of that spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.

 

[enochson]

If it is of God it will bring freedom and if it is of man bondage to man.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There were any christians who baptised in name of Father ,son, Holy Gost. All were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. So we must be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ like the christians in the Bible.

You can be baptized under either name or names. But all it will do is get you wet, if you have not been baptized by God himself first.

 

[enochson]

I will sit on the bank of the river with christ and say what a waste of time it's the one with firer that counts.