A scripture that awaits to be seen in the light... (Matthew 28:19)
A scripture that awaits to be seen in the light... (Matthew 28:19)
“Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given ME in heaven and on the earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Hebrew Matt 28:18-20)
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, " (Hebrew Matthew 28:19)
The Historian Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339), had extensive access to the Library that kept a copy of the original text of Matthew. Eusebius was also a Bishop whom quoted the Shem Tov Book of Matthew some seventeen times and all quotes of (Matthew 28:19) were quotes of one accord with no variations, (In My Name).
"In fact, Eusebius refers to this passage well over a dozen times in the same form as the above quotations. Now you must also be aware that this quotation by Eusebius is also earlier than our earliest manuscripts for this verse. Hence, it is quite possible that a corruption occurred around the time the Arian controversy broke out under Constantine's reign. The following quotation is particularly interesting:
For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”.
Scripture also says that by the authority of Jesus people would be told to turn to God and change the way they think and act so that their sins will be forgiven. This would be told to people from all nations, beginning in the city of Jerusalem. '...and on the basis of his name, repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem.' (Luke 24:47)
When the Apostles approached the public in Jerusalem to give witness about Jesus, the Sanhedrin had them brought in for questioning, and a Pharisee named Gamaliel rose in the Sanhedrin and reasoned with them to be careful as to what you intend to do about these men. Do not meddle with these men, but let them alone. For if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. Otherwise, you may even be found fighters against God himself.” (Acts 5:33-39)
"At this they took his advice, and they summoned the apostles, flogged them, and ordered them to stop speaking on the basis of Jesus’ name, and let them go." (Acts 5:40) Notice the Apostles weren't speaking in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but in Jesus' Name.
We also have this scripture which states, "For you were buried with him in his baptism, and by your relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the powerful work of God, who raised him up from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)
Eusebius goes on to relate that "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.’ (Demonstatio Evangelica, col. 240, p. 136)
So where did the current liturgy or formula found at Matthew 28:19 come from?
- Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 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.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.
- A key tellable sign that this was 100% Catholic liturgy is that it read in the name "of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"
- Early Christians
However, between the years 315 and 325 CE the Hebrew Book of Matthew was shelved or in some manner hidden away or may have even been destroyed. "The Greek version used by Eusebius poured more widely these verses, but in no way changing the sense of the Hebrew text, because when he quotes in his Ecclesiastical History part of Matthew 28:19, he writes:
“Πηγαίνετε, κάντε μαθητές από όλα τα έθνη στο όνομά μου”
“Go, make disciples of all nations in my name.”
There is NOTHING in this scripture about baptizing in the Shem Tov Book of Matthew 28:19, but rather the making of disciples. Today, what is found of the Aramaic texts of Matthew 28:19, did not contain any form of baptism nor was the making of disciples found, but contained the simplistic command "Go". However, the verse “Go, make disciples of all nations in my name” was quoted dozen of times by several historians of the Hebrew Book of Matthew before its' official deletion and alteration took place on 325 CE at the Council of Nicaea.
Since there are other scriptures that point to what Name was to be invoked in baptizing new converts, it is evident that the Catholic dogma was inserted early and in it's infancy by design to lead the masses away from Jesus Christ. However, there is no need for dependence on outside sources when the Bible itself has been preserved. Allowing scripture to interpret scripture when it comes to Baptizing is the Best Method. Here's a short list...
- Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
- “With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)
- “But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)
- “Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)
- “On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
- 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.”
- Catholic Catechism - “Into Christ. The Bible tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ (no. 6). They belong to Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) tells us of baptizing “in the name (person) of Jesus.” -- a better translation would be “into the name (person) of Jesus.” Only in the 4th Century did the formula "In the
- name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” become customary.”
Source: Kersten, J. C. (1973). Bible Catechism. NY., N.Y.: Catholic Book Publishing Co., p. 164
Ps... Brother Rando's Detailed Summary of Matthew 28:19
My findings of Matthew 28:19 in its' current state is that it had been altered and falsified by what the Apostle Paul called the Superfine Apostles in 2 Corinthians and what the Apostle John called antichrists in 1 John in the latter part of the first century. As the Apostles fell asleep in death by 100 CE, the Great Apostasy began.
Matthew 28:19 was one of the first or the first scripture that underwent a corruption by what is called today as the Apostolic Church. Apostates of the first century whom left the teachings of the Apostles. Also known as the Apostolic Fathers of Christendom. These false teachers of the first and second century either knew or claimed to have been influenced by the Twelve Apostles. All the while, being oppossers of the Apostles with smooth words to carry off their prey. It became the foundation of the Catholic Church.
The formula found at Matthew 28:19 sticks out of place using a triune formula for baptism. The problem is that none of the Apostles ever taught such a thing. "Whatever it is that you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:17)
The wording is the same wording used in the Didache Chapter Seven and Verse One. An apostate teaching that was introduced deceptively by the Superfine Apostles who left Christ.
The Didache falsely claims to be the Lord's teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. Not only did these Apostates reject the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ, but you will also notice the denial of Baptism by complete water immersion. Also, you will see they have become like the Pharisees adding rules and regulations that the one being baptized is to Fast for one or two days. LOL.... at least they didn't say THREE days!
Reading just a few lines, one can see how heavy handed this Apostate Church was with man-made traditions. Such big fat hypocrites! Can't get baptized unless you Fast for one or two days. Need to use cold water, if not, then warm. Need to use running water, if not, then pour water on the head three times! Jump on one leg and yell fly me to the moon! What a Cult!
Therefore the finding of the current Matthew 28:19 is just as Fake and Spurious as the Apostates who put it there. The Didache is just one of many Apostolic Constitutions that served as the basis for twisting and altering the Bible. It shows the deceptive moral and religious conditions of the third and fourth centuries, not what the Bible really teaches.
This Apocrypha satire should be exposed and dismissed as "the angel flying in midheaven has everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people." (Rev 14:6)
I look forward to the day to open up the New World Translation with the correct rending, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name," (Matthew 28:19)
Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)
Comments
-
@Brother Rando September 16 The Historian Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339), had extensive access to the Library that kept a copy of the original text of Matthew. Eusebius was also a Bishop whom quoted the Shem Tov Book of Matthew some seventeen times and all quotes of (Matthew 28:19) were quotes of one accord with no variations, (In My Name).
@Brother Rando September 16 "In fact, Eusebius refers to this passage well over a dozen times in the same form as the above quotations. Now you must also be aware that this quotation by Eusebius is also earlier than our earliest manuscripts for this verse. Hence, it is quite possible that a corruption occurred around the time the Arian controversy broke out under Constantine's reign. The following quotation is particularly interesting:
@Brother Rando September 16 For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”.
Searching the 57 Eusebius resources in my Logos library for nations NEAR ("in my name" OR "the name of") found results in 29 resources. Point 3 in a letter about the Council of Nicæa written by Eusebius of Cæsarea includes “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese
1. What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great Council assembled at Nicæa, you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, the second, which [the Fathers] put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:—
2. “As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:”—
3. “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost:
“believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Concerning Whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to shew and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.”
4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula:—
The Faith dictated in the Council
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—
“And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.”
“And in the Holy Ghost.”
“And those who say, ‘Once He was not,’ and ‘Before His generation He was not,’ and ‘He came to be from nothing,’ or those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘Of other subsistence or essence,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘alterable,’ or ‘mutable,’ the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view.
6. In the same way we also admitted “begotten, not made;” since the Council alleged that “made” was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of an essence which is too high for the level of any work; and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father5, the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every originated nature.
7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is “one in essence” with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father’s essence and power (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien), but because “one in essence with the Father” suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father2. To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term “one in essence,” in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son.
8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by thee forementioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, “out of nothing,” and “once He was not,” and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
9. Moreover to anathematize “Before His generation He was not,” did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.
10. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always, being all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way.
11. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute as long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have already published.
Eusebius of Caesarea, “Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the People of His Diocese,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 74–76.
Searching all books in my Logos library for "in my name" NEAR nations NEAR (teaching OR baptizing) found results in 26 resources, which included shortened form, “Go, make disciples of all the nations in my name.” =>
A textual question involves the presence of the Trinitarian formula, “into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Eusebius cited the command in various forms, most often omitting the phrase about the Trinity. This led to the conclusion that he knew the text in a shortened form, “Go, make disciples of all the nations in my name.” Since all other textual witnesses give the full text, most textual critics have accepted it as original. An examination of Eusebius’s references where the baptismal command was omitted shows that it was superfluous to the context (for in every case the emphasis was on the universality of Christ’s teaching in contrast to previous religious and civil law), and consideration of Eusebius’s method of citing Scripture (omitting phrases he counted irrelevant and blending phrases from other passages he counted pertinent) deprives the argument for a shorter text of any validity. New arguments, however, from context and from the poetry-like structure of other passages in Matthew have been advanced in support of a shorter text as original in Matthew 28:19. It seems more likely to me that Eusebius paraphrased when his interest was the apostles’ mission or the Lord’s ethical teaching and cited the full text when Trinitarian concerns were at the forefront. The early and general acceptance of baptism in the Trinitarian name and the presence of the long form of the verse in all manuscripts and all witnesses to the text (except for Eusebius, and even in some places by him) are difficult to account for on other grounds than that the words are original in Matthew (especially when one considers that Matthew was the most widely used Gospel in the second century). Some words were necessary at the baptism—spoken either by the administrator, the candidate, or both—to show its purpose and distinguish it from what others did.
Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 133–135.
Hence requesting @Brother Rando to provide Eusebius shortened form quote(s) with baptismal context.
An example Eusebius “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.” quote not having baptismal context is in 'The Church History of Eusebius', Book 3, Chapter 5:
The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ
1 After Nero had held the power thirteen years, and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months, Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there. Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.
2 For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
3 But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
4 But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time, the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.
5 But it is necessary to state that this writer records that the multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea at the time of the Passover, to the number of three million souls, were shut up in Jerusalem “as in a prison,” to use his own words.
6 For it was right that in the very days in which they had inflicted suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of God, that in those days, shut up “as in a prison,” they should meet with destruction at the hands of divine justice.
7 But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ of God.
Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 138–139.
Searching all books in my Logos library for "in my name" NEAR nations found results in 113 resources, which included Malachi 1:11 that has context of Malachi 1:6-14 LEB =>
“A son honors his father, and a slave his master; but if I am a father, where is my honor, and if I am a master, where is my reverence?” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. “But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ You are presenting defiled food on my altar! But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ By saying that the table of יהוה Yahweh is despised! When you offer a blind animal for sacrifice, is that not wrong? And when you offer the lame and the one who is ill, is that not wrong? Present it, please, to your governor! Will he be pleased with you? Will he show you favor?” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. So then, implore the favor of God so that he will be gracious to us. “This is what you have done. Will he show favor to any of you?” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. “Who also among you will shut the temple doors so that you will not kindle fire in vain on my altar? I take no pleasure in you,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts, “and I will not accept an offering from your hand. From the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is being presented to my name, and a pure offering. For my name is great among the nations,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. “But you are profaning it by saying the table of the Lord is defiled, and its fruit—its food—is despised! And you say, ‘Look! This is a weariness,’ and you sniff with disdain at it,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. “And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the one that is sick—this you bring as the offering! Should I accept it from your hand?” says יהוה Yahweh. “Cursed is the one who cheats, who has in his flock a male and vows it, but instead sacrifices a blemished one to the Lord! For I am a great king,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts, “and my name is awesome among the nations.”
that is consistent with Isaiah 44:6-8 LEB =>
Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me. And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming. You must not tremble, and you must not be paralyzed with fear. Have I not made you hear from of old and declared it, and you are my witnesses? Is there a god besides me? And there is no rock! I know none!”
To me, יהוה Yahweh of hosts humbly left Holy Heaven to be clothed in human flesh as The Son of Man, who is the King Righteous (Melchizedek) and shares " יהוה of Righteousness we " name as it is written in Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB =>
“Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’
To me, the pronoun 'our' in phrase ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’ expresses Holy God's point of view as the last two Hebrew words יהוה צדקנו have literal meaning " יהוה of Righteousness we "
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristYes, I have waded through those same waters. But I am of the opinion that outside sources are not needed here. I fear if we have waited for the original scriptures to come to light, the Greek translations would not exist at all. We only have copies of copies in which to find commonalities.
There is no commonality found with Matthew 28:19 in its' current translation. But if Bible Principles are applied that are found, then it would start the process to reason and use discernment. One of those Bible Principles are "No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established." (Deuteronomy 19:15)
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name"
- "Also, whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son." (John 14:23)
- "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you." (John 14:26)
- “Whoever receives one of such young children on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me receives not me only but also Him who sent me.” (Mark 9:37)
- But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me." (Mark 9:39)
-
Thank you for expressing that my faith belief about יהוה Salvation (Christ = Messiah) is different than Watchtower Society (JW.org) belief of archangel Michael. I am
Christagainst archangel Michael false teaching.@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 18 Hence requesting @Brother Rando to provide Eusebius shortened form quote(s) with baptismal context.
@Brother Rando September 18 Yes, I have waded through those same waters. But I am of the opinion that outside sources are not needed here.
My request for @Brother Rando to provide Eusebius of Cæsarea shortened form quote(s) with baptismal context received 'outside sources are not needed here' that confirms your initial 'quotes of one accord with no variations' assertion in this thread about Eusebius of Cæsarea was factually false.
Another outside source is the hebrewgospels.com website, whose Matthew translation of Hebrew manscript Vat. Ebr. 100 (from Sepharad) finishes with =>
18 And Yeshua came and said to them, "YHWH gave me power in the heavens and in the earth. 19 Therefore go preach to all the peoples, and immerse them in the name of the Father and the Son and of Ruach Ha-Qodesh, and teach them, and keep all that I commanded you. 20 And I will be with you in all time, until the end of the world."
The Matthew translation introduction includes:
Previously, the most highly attested Hebrew version of Matthew was the Shem Tov version. It contains many Hebraisms, puns, and word plays, as well as Hebrew keywords linking different sections together. It solves several contradictions in the Greek tradition of Matthew, and has been studied much in the past few decades.
The problem with the Shem Tov version is that it was copied by people who denied Yeshua, rejected him as Messiah, and deleted every instance in which Matthew calls Yeshua 'the Messiah'. So, can one trust the Shem Tov version to be accurate ? It also contains unsolvable contradictions, e.g. it is impossible to show from the Shem Tov that Yeshua was in the grave for three days and three nights.
On the other hand, the Vat. Ebr. 100 manuscript used for this translation is in a totally different class, as it clearly equates Yeshua with the Messiah, and openly declares him the Son of El. It also solves many questions and supposed contradictions ! Although it seems to be a translation from Catalan back into Hebrew, the manuscript is full of linguistic proofs showing that there is no way it could possibly be a derivative of the Greek, nor of Jerome's Latin version, as some have claimed.
Thus the Catalan version it probably derived from, had to come from an authentic Hebrew manuscript. There are many instances in which the Greek gospels (which were later translated into Latin) could easily be a translation from a Hebrew manuscript similar to Vat. Ebr. 100, but impossible that this manuscript could originate from the Greek or Latin. We are planning to publish these linguistic evidences, and numerous other interesting discoveries in a separate series of articles, rather than having them all mixed up and scattered throughout the footnotes.
Did people copying the Shem Tov version intentionally corrupt Matthew 28:19 =>
@Brother Rando September 18 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name"
that would be consistent with rejecting Yeshua as the Messiah (Christ) ?
Another outside source is Wikipedia Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew that documents Extant manscripts =>
28 manuscripts containing the Gospel of Matthew of Shem Tob are known to have survived until the present time. These manuscripts are dated between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.
@Brother Rando September 18 "Also, whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son." (John 14:23)
@Brother Rando September 18 "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you." (John 14:26)
Larger context for my name in John 14:23 & John 14:26 includes John 14:1-31 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) =>
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in אלהים God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places; but if not, I would have told you, because I am going away to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, so that where I am, you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.”
Thomas said to him, “יהוה Lord, we do not know where you are going. How are we able to know the way?”
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “יהוה Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Am I with you so long a time and you have not known me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in me, the works that I am doing he will do also, and he will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, in order that he may be with you forever — the Spirit of truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it does not see him or know him. You know him, because he resides with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you. Yet a little time and the world will see me no longer, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. The one who has my commandments and keeps them — that one is the one who loves me. And the one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.”
Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “יהוה Lord, why is it that you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?”
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will take up residence with him. The one who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me. These things I have spoken to you while residing with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name — that one will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything that I said to you. “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you — not as the world gives, I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. You have heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no power over me. But so that the world may know that I love the Father, and just as the Father has commanded me, thus I am doing. Get up, let us go from here!
If יהוה Salvation (Jesus) knew he was not eternal Theon (θεὸν), then why would יהוה Salvation (Jesus) command to be believing in יהוה Salvation (Jesus) the same as believing in the Theon (θεὸν) ?
πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε
Holmes, M. W. (2011–2013). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Jn 14:1). Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature.
Be Ye Believing in The Theon, also in Me Be Ye Believing (my literal translation showing continuous believing action command in present time)
John 14:23 & John 14:26 My Name יהוה (for Holy God, not an angelic creation) is consistent with Isaiah 44:6-8 LEB =>
Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me. And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming. You must not tremble, and you must not be paralyzed with fear. Have I not made you hear from of old and declared it, and you are my witnesses? Is there a god besides me? And there is no rock! I know none!”
To me, יהוה Yahweh of hosts humbly left Holy Heaven to be clothed in human flesh as The Son of Man, who is the King Righteous (Melchizedek) and shares " יהוה of Righteousness we " name as it is written in Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB =>
“Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’
To me, the pronoun 'our' in phrase ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’ expresses Holy God's point of view as the last two Hebrew words יהוה צדקנו have literal meaning " יהוה of Righteousness we "
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristAccording to your false teaching... God is made up of three separate voices
There is only one voice that would remove
Jesus Christfrom Scripture... the AntiChristThe 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.”
-
@Brother Rando September 19 The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
@Brother Rando September 19 “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."
Website ccel.org has a pdf of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, whose page 263 (Assizes to Baal) does not mention baptism at all =>
state, and he gives no countenance, whatever to this modern opinion of total depravity." It is the same with Calvin's affirmation of the irresistible action of God on the will. Cunningham shows that these doctrines are irreconcilable with liberty and responsibility, whereas, on the contrary, "St. Austin is careful to attempt to harmonize the belief in God's omnipotence with human responsibility" (St. Austin, p. 86). The Council of Trent was therefore faithful to the true spirit of the African Doctor, and maintained pure Augustinism in the bosom of the Church, by Its definitions against the two opposite excesses. Against Pelagianism it reaffirmed original sin and the absolute necessity of grace (Sess. VI, can. 2); against Protestant predestinationism it proclaimed the freedom of man, with his double power of resisting grace (posse dissentire si velit -- Sess. VI, can. 4) and of doing good or evil, even before embracing the Faith (can. 6 and 7).
In the seventeenth century Jansenism adopted, while modifying it, the Protestant conception of original sin and the state of fallen man. No more than Luther did the Jansenists admit the two orders, natural and supernatural. All the gifts which Adam had received immortality, knowledge, integrity, sanctifying grace -- are absolutely required by the nature of man. Original sin is, therefore, again regarded as a profound alteration of human nature. From which the Jansenists conclude that the key to St. Augustine's system is to be found in the essential difference of the Divine government and of grace, before and after the Fall of Adam. Before the Fall Adam enjoyed complete liberty, and grace gave him the power of resisting or obeying; after the Fall there was no longer in men liberty properly so called; there was only spontaneity (libertas a coactione, and not libertas a necessitate). Grace, or delectation in the good, is essentially efficacious, and necessarily victorious once it is superior in degree to the opposite concupiscence. The struggle, which was prolonged for two centuries, led to a more profound study of the Doctor of Hippo and prepared the way for the definite triumph of Augustinism, but of an Augustinism mitigated in accordance with laws which we must now indicate.
(3) Laws which governed the mitigation of Augustinism
In spite of what Protestant critics may have said, the Church has always been faithful to the fundamental principles defended by Augustine against the Pelagians and Semipelagians, on original sin, the necessity and gratuity of grace, the absolute dependence on God for salvation. Nevertheless, great progress was made along the line of gradual mitigation. For it cannot be denied that the doctrine formulated at Trent, and taught by all our theologians, produces an impression of greater suavity
263
Searching a digital copy of The Catholic Encyclopedia (& 1,694 other Catholic resources) in my Logos Library for phrase "baptismal formula was changed" found nothing. Hence, this thread is showing factually false propensity by @Brother Rando (& stuff copied from JW.org)
How many times has WatchTower Society (JW.org) changed Baptism questions ? (some research found three sets of questions)
1 May 1973 page 280: (1) “Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?” and, (2) “On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?”
1 June 1985 page 30: (1) “On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will? (2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?”
Currently: (1) Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ? (2) Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?
What is the scriptural basis for baptism identification with the Jehovah's organization ?
Noted JW.Org "Concluding Discussion With Baptism Candidates" includes elder pre-requisites for public Baptism questions:
The elders will make sure that a person desiring baptism has acquired a reasonable understanding of basic Bible teachings. Additionally, they will want to ascertain whether he deeply appreciates the truth and demonstrates proper respect for Jehovah’s organization. If the person does not understand basic Bible teachings, the elders will arrange for him to receive personal assistance so that he can qualify for baptism at a later time. Others may need to be given time to demonstrate more appreciation for field service or submissiveness to organizational arrangements. It will be up to the elders to use discretion in apportioning the hour or so spent in each session in order to discern fully whether the person is ready for baptism. Although more time may be spent on certain questions and less time on others, all the questions should be reviewed.
How many predictions by the Watchtower Society (JW.org) are currently unfulfilled ? e.g. years 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975
Comment on October 30, 2021 documents many unfulfilled predictions by the Watchtower Society (JW.org) in various publications, which proves the Society has NEVER BEEN the correct communication channel to/for Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God (fails simple test of 100% accuracy).
Which words are more important: Holy eternal ones spoken/inspired by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God OR lots of human words published by the Watchtower Society (JW.org) ?
Each person choses what to ❤️ Love Most. My choice is believing One unique Holy God correctly inspired scripture (original language words), which describes three voices in One Holy God (quite different than human beings who have one voice).
🙏Praying to God for merciful magnitude of Holy Healing in all life domains for many, many, many people: heart (emotional), mind (mental), soul (social), strength (physical), & worship (spiritual) 🙏
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristWebsite ccel.org has a pdf of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, whose page 263 (Assizes to Baal) does not mention baptism at all =>Of course your cult of the Catholic Church of the AntiChrist would assize to Baal by removing Jesus Christ from scripture, and it's not the only time CHRIST removed by you evildoers.
- Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 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.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.
Your deception came from the city of Pagan Rome. It's coming to it's destruction. Good riddens! Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83 claims “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.”
Jehovah Witnesses are the only true Christians that worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and truth. (John 4:23-24)
- We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.—1 Peter 2:21.
- We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Acts 4:12.
- When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.—Matthew 28:18, 19.
- We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.—John 15:16.
- We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.—1 Corinthians 11:3.
However, in a number of ways, we are different from other religious groups that are called Christian. For example, we believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, not part of a Trinity. (Mark 12:29)
-
Which words should be more important to @Brother Rando: lots of human words published by the Watchtower Society (JW.org) OR Holy eternal ones spoken/inspired by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 20 Website ccel.org has a pdf of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, whose page 263 (Assizes to Baal) does not mention baptism at all =>
@Brother Rando September 20 Of course your cult of the Catholic Church of the AntiChrist would assize to Baal by removing Jesus Christ from scripture, and it's not the only time CHRIST removed by you evildoers.
Page 263 of The Catholic Encyclopedia II has Assizes to Baal (topical index) on upper right portion of the page. Your description about me is factually false (& unrighteous), which reminds me of Romans 1:18-25 LEB =>
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to immorality, that their bodies would be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God with a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for eternity. Amen.
To me, adherents of Watchtower Society (JW.org) worship the human created publications & organization more than the immortal God, whose eternal truth remains true eternally. When the Watchtower Society publishes a change, adherents have a choice: change personal beliefs to reflect Society change OR be shunned.
What could happen to the personal faith belief of @Brother Rando if equal reading time was given to praying Psalm 119:18 followed by reading scripture without Watchtower Society interpretation ?
@Brother Rando September 20 Your deception came from the city of Pagan Rome. It's coming to it's destruction. Good riddens! Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83 claims “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.”
False deception is parenthetical comments that do not fit the context written by Joseph Ratzinger (with translation by J. R. Foster in 2004).
Chapter 2
The Ecclesiastical form of Faith
1. introductory remarks on the history and structure of the apostles’ creed
All that we have said so far has done no more than attempt to answer the formal question of what belief as such is and where in the world of modern thought it can find a starting point and a function to perform. The more far-reaching problems relating to its content thus necessarily remained open — with the whole subject perhaps looking only too pale and ill-defined. The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our 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 comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In accordance with this injunction, three questions are put to the person to be baptized: “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God …? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit …?” The person being baptized replies to each of these three questions with the word “credo”—I believe—and is then each time immersed in the water. Thus the oldest form of the confession of faith takes the shape of a tripartite dialogue, of question and answer, and is, moreover, embedded in the ceremony of baptism.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–83.
The text of the Apostles’ Creed came from the city of Rome according to Ratzinger.
@Brother Rando September 20 Jehovah Witnesses are the only true Christians that worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and truth.
To me, the Watchtower Society has deceptively redefined words in your assertion, a crafty mix of falsehoods with truth: e.g. what words are read with meaning of archangel Michael. Seriously lacking credibility is eternal words spoken by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God to identify the Watchtower Society as the only true believer organization.
Sadly, Jehovah Witnesses really do not know my friend & redeemer יהוה Salvation, who immensely ❤️ loves every human. To me, יהוה Yahweh of hosts humbly left Holy Heaven to be clothed in human flesh as The Son of Man, who is the King Righteous (Melchizedek) and shares " יהוה of Righteousness we " name as it is written in Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB =>
“Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’
To me, the pronoun 'our' in phrase ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’ expresses Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God's point of view as the last two Hebrew words יהוה צדקנו have literal meaning " יהוה of Righteousness we " (consistent with One Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God being uniquely unlike any created human being by having more than one voice, a plural unique God as described in Deuteronomy 6:4).
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristThe Ecclesiastical form of Faith1. introductory remarks on the history and structure of the apostles’ creed
There is no such thing as an Apostle Creed in the first century. The Apostle Paul called them the Superfine Apostles in 2 Corinthians and what the Apostle John called antichrists in 1 John in the latter part of the first century. As the Apostles fell asleep in death by 100 CE, the Great Apostasy began.
- For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
- Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. (1 John 2:19)
- 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.”
Who would remove Jesus Christ from Scripture and replace it with three voices? And I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. (Revelation 16:13-14)
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.”
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.”
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.”
-
"Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 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.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83."
"There is no such thing as an Apostle Creed in the first century. "
Who stated the Apostles' Creed was in the first century A.D.?
The above quote, spurious indeed in its form, which you supply is not from Ratzinger's first edition work, nor his second edition of Introduction to Christianity published 2004.
@KS4J has supplied, twice prior, the pertinent text from the second edition for you here and here – making this thread the third instance of providing Ratzinger's printed words in their context.
Additionally, I provided a summary to you here.
What is noticeable from the context of your quote, which is a copy and paste job, found on the internet, is the first sentence – which is a false statement introduced by someone who has, in addition, manipulated the text to support their purpose with the insertion of "(Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian)" and "(Matthew 28:19)".
Here is the spurious quote:
"Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19."
False statement; but, with the manipulation of the text following it below someone might actually believe Ratzinger wrote it.
“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.”
Below is Ratzinger's published word – emphasis mine:
"The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread."
The Apostles' Creed has now been mentioned.
"It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure."
The origin and structure regarding the Creed is brought up.
"The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism."
The second and third centuries are mentioned – no first century. Also, there is no inserted "(Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian)" in this published work contra your copy and pasted example.
"So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism."
The place of origin comes up now; but, what has been the subject matter in the flow and context of what Ratzinger has written so far? The answer is the Apostles' Creed. And once again, their is no inserted "(Matthew 28:19)" in this portion.
In summary, Ratzinger is speaking about the Apostles' Creed taking its form in the second and third century A.D., and specifically that the provenance of the Apostles' Creed text was Rome.
"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.”"
The above quote does not exist in The Catholic Encyclopedia in any of its volumes, nor can it be found anywhere in the encyclopedia's article regarding Baptism. I see that @KS4J has extensively researched this as well.
My guess is that it is a quote from someone, unknown now apparently, who made the above assertion from their own interpretation of what they read. And has been used mindlessly ever since – thinking it is authoritative.
If you believe the above quote, then perhaps you will provide verifiable references to support this dubious quote.
-
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 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.”
"In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out." – Conybeare" See that? ‘
in my name’, struck out. It's becoming a common place for the antichrist to removeChristfrom scripture.- And he healed many ⌊who were sick⌋l with various diseases and expelled many demons. And he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him
to be Christ. (Mark 1:34) AntiChrisitan - So he cured many who were ill with various sicknesses, and he expelled many demons, but he would not let the demons speak, for they knew him to be Christ. (Mark 1:34) Christian NWT
and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: 'There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.'
and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem.
and repentance and forgiveness of sins to be proclaimed in His name to all nations, having begun from Jerusalem.
and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.Â
International Standard Version
and then repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.Â
and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
and that repentance leading to forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And that conversion to the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name in all the nations, and the beginning would be at Jerusalem.
Scripture also says that by the authority of Jesus people would be told to turn to God and change the way they think and act so that their sins will be forgiven. This would be told to people from all nations, beginning in the city of Jerusalem.
and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.Â
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations beginning at Jerusalem.
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
and that proclamation would be made, in His name, of repentance and forgiveness of sins to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem.
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
and reformation and remission of sins to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem:
“Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” Matt 28:18
He never stated (All authority has been given to the three of us in heaven and on earth.) because the trinity is unbiblical and a sham.
Notice the authority was GIVEN to him.... he become better than the angels simply because of the NAME he inherited.
"So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Hebrews 1:4)
Water Baptism is not spurious but the Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit IS........trinitarians are counterfeit christians.
- And he healed many ⌊who were sick⌋l with various diseases and expelled many demons. And he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him
-
@Brother Rando September 21 The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 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.”
My Logos library includes Tyndale New Testament Commentary | TNTC (21 vols.) that does NOT have the above quote.
In fact, searching all books in my Logos library for two phrases "ipsissima verba" "later liturgical addition" found only one resource has both phrases. Page 61 has "ipsissima verba" =>
§ b Kinds of Criticism—Criticism may be defined as the art of distinguishing, in a literary work, what is genuine from what is false, what is authentic (due to the original author) from what is additional, and evaluating the whole in terms of literary and other relevant standards. It is commonly distinguished into textual criticism, literary, i.e. ‘higher’ criticism, and historical criticism, this last being understood in a broad sense, since its nature varies greatly according to the kind of matter dealt with—historical, theological, legal, etc. § c Of this art textual criticism is a fundamental branch. It is chiefly exercised on material transmitted through a manuscript tradition (as opposed to printed work in which it finds little scope) Its task is to eliminate accidental corruptions of the text (usually copyists’ errors) and establish the ipsissima verba, in their original order, of the author or final editor. Given that text, as nearly as it can be established, ‘higher’ or literary criticism then has the task of determining its origin and mode of composition, i.e. the author or authors, the materials used and to what extent they were recast, what kind of work the author intended to write, etc. After this analysis the third type of criticism (often grouped with the second as ‘higher’) judges the value and significance of the work, its importance in history, and synthesizes the information that may be drawn from it.
R. A. Dyson and R. A. F. Mackenzie, “Higher Criticism: With Special Reference to the OldTestament,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 61.
Page 863 has "later liturgical addition" in Matthew 6:7-15 commentary =>
§ g 7–15. Digression on Prayer (Lk 11:1–4)—First a warning, 7–8, then the ideal prayer, 9–13. 7–8. There must be no gabbling over empty formulae. This is superstition like that of the pagans who feared to omit from their prayer the name of one god or the mention of one request. The Christian is not forbidden to lay his needs before God (though he already knows them) but he should do so in simple, general terms, and in a trustful spirit. Needless to say, repetition of such simple prayer as the Rosary is by no means discouraged provided it does not become mechanical. We use repetition not to secure God’s attention, but to sustain our own. 9–13. The Ideal Prayer. Mt’s text of the ‘Our Father ‘is longer than Lk’s. There are three prayers for the glory of God (‘hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done’) with an expansion (‘as in heaven so on earth’) and three personal requests: for food, forgiveness, freedom from temptation, with an expansion of this last (‘but deliver us from evil’). Lk has neither of the expansions and omits ‘Thy will be done’. The Jewish colouring of Mt’s text (obscured in Lk’s, cf. *Allen, 58) and its Semitic balance powerfully suggest that Mt represents the original form of the prayer, abbreviated and simplified by Lk. Lk, however, has probably given the prayer its exact chronological setting. Most of the phrases of the prayer are to be found in Jewish sources (cf. SB 1, 406–25) but its simple brevity and the deliberate exclusion of the spirit of Jewish nationalism (markedly present, e.g. in the great Jewish prayer, the Tephillah or Shemoneh Esre) prove that though the body may be Jewish, the soul is Christian (Buzy). The tenderness and trust of the whole prayer are revealed in the bold word ‘Father’. § h The phrase ‘our Father’ draws our Lord’s followers together as children of one family. It is fitting that the first ejaculations should be addressed to the Father’s honour which, however, is always inseparable from man’s benefit. The Christian prays that the holiness of the divine ‘name’ (i.e. in Semitic expression, the person as known and revealed) may be recognized. Since this ‘holiness’ is not only God’s sacred remoteness, Lev 10:3 etc., but his absolute moral perfection, Ez 36:21 ff., the recognition means man’s practical acceptance of his Father’s commands. 10. The second petition implies the same recognition but, this time, rather of God’s kingship establishing itself increasingly in the hearts of men. The third (‘thy will be done’) declares clearly what is latent in the first two: effective acknowledgement of God as Father and King is accomplished by filial and loyal subjection. May this be as perfect as that of the angels! (Ps 102:19 ff.; Lagrange). 11. The second half of the prayer also has three members which, unlike those of the first half, are direct petitions for our needs. Of these, the first (‘Give us this day our supersubstantial bread’: τὸν ἄρτον ἠμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δός ἡμῖν σήμερον) is a request for the simple necessaries of life, embraced in the term ‘bread’. The word ‘supersubstantial’ (Vg translation of ἐπιούσιον which, however, it renders ‘daily’ in Lk 11:3) suggests ‘excellent’, ‘special’ (περιούσιον) as it did for Jerome (PL 26, 43; cf. Prat II, 35 note) and favours a Eucharistic reference. Nevertheless, the word ἐπιούσιος (so far found only once elsewhere and with meaning uncertain, cf. JTS 35, 377) will not bear this translation. Etymologically it means either ‘necessary for subsistence’ (ἐπί + οὐσία) or ‘for the day that lies before us’ (ἐπί + ἰοῦσα, i.e. ‘belonging to the coming’ day, cf. Prov 27:1, LXX). This second meaning, though in itself more probable, makes the phrase ‘this day’ redundant. It may therefore be preferable to accept a third explanation (*Black, 149–53) and read ‘Give us our bread day by day’ as a more exact rendering of an Aramaic idiom (wrongly translated in the Gk) which runs literally ‘of today and the following day’. § i 12. The next petition is for forgiveness of sins, called ‘debts’ in Mt and in common Jewish parlance (Lk has simplified to ‘sins’). We ask forgiveness on conditions that must make us reflect on our own conduct towards those who have injured us (cf. 14 and 18:32–35). 13 is probably one petition put negatively and positively (the latter being omitted by Lk). It asks that our Father should not ‘lead’ us into temptation. Since God tempts no man, Jas 1:13, the phrase ‘lead us not’ may be understood ‘permit us not to go’ (in the Semitic manner, cf. Joüon & WV note). Nor does the word ‘temptation’ necessarily imply a direct invitation to sin; it may indicate circumstances which, for us, prove to be an occasion of sin. The prayer ends with a final cry for deliverance from all moral evil (probably—in view of Mt’s usual sense of τὸ πονηρόν—not ‘from the evil one’). The word ‘Amen’ is a later, liturgical addition. So also are doxologies like: ‘For thine is the kingdom …’, probably added (*Plummer) to avoid ending the prayer with the word ‘evil’. 14–15 explain and underline in antithetic parallelism (cf. § 313e) the condition of divine forgiveness implied in the petition of 12.
A. Jones, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St Matthew,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 863.
Tyndale New Testament Commentary (TNTC) on Matthew 28:19 =>
19. Jesus’ universal Lordship now demands a universal mission. The restriction of the disciples’ mission to Israel alone in 10:5–6 can now be lifted, for the kingdom of the Son of man as described in Daniel 7:14 requires disciples of all nations. Ethnē (‘nations’) is the regular Greek term for Gentiles, and it has been argued that this command therefore actually excludes the Jews from the scope of the disciples’ mission. But to send the disciples to ‘the Gentiles’ is merely to extend the range of their mission, and need not imply a cessation of the mission to Israel which has already been commanded, and can now be taken for granted. Moreover, the phrase panta ta ethnē (‘all nations’) has been used previously in 24:9, 14; 25:32 in contexts which probably all include Israel in ‘the nations’. And surely there can be no suggestion in Daniel 7:14 of the exclusion of Israel from the dominion of the Son of man, who himself represents Israel. This then is the culmination of the theme we have noted throughout the Gospel, the calling of a people of God far wider than that of the Old Testament, in which membership is based not on race but on a relationship with God through his Messiah (see above, on 3:9; 8:11–12; 12:21; 21:28–32, 41–43; 22:8–10; 24:14, 31; 26:13). The description of the mission in terms of making disciples emphasizes this personal allegiance. It is sometimes argued that if Jesus had spoken so clearly, his followers could not have been so hesitant about the admission of Gentile believers as we see them in Acts, but it is worth noting (a) that Luke sees no inconsistency between an equally clear command (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8) and the later hesitations, and (b) that in fact the debates in the post-Easter church were not so much over whether Gentiles should be admitted as over the conditions of their admission (circumcision, keeping the food-laws, etc.).
Baptizing and ‘teaching’ (v. 20) are participles dependent on the main verb, make disciples; they further specify what is involved in discipleship. Baptizing has been mentioned in this Gospel only as the activity of John, though the Gospel of John makes it clear that it was a characteristic also of Jesus’ ministry at least in the early days while John was still active (John 3:22–26; 4:1–3). It was against the background of John’s practice that it would be understood, as an act of repentance and of identification with the purified and prepared people of God (see on 3:6, 9, 13). But while John’s baptism was only a preparatory one (3:11), Jesus now institutes one with a fuller meaning. It is a commitment to (in the name is literally ‘into the name’, implying entrance into an allegiance) the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (all three of whom, interestingly, were involved in the event of Jesus’ own baptism, 3:16–17). Jesus thus takes his place along with his Father and the Spirit as the object of worship and of the disciple’s commitment. The experience of God in these three Persons is the essential basis of discipleship. At the same time the singular noun name (not ‘names’) underlines the unity of the three Persons.
Baptism was in fact performed in New Testament times, as far as our records go, in the name of Jesus, which is surprising if Jesus had laid down an explicit trinitarian formula before his ascension. An explanation for this may be found in the argument that these words, which later came to be used as a liturgical formula, were not originally so intended and used. They were rather ‘a description of what baptism accomplished’ (AB, pp. 362–363). Or it may be that Matthew is summarizing, in the more explicit and formal language of the church in which he wrote, the gist of what Jesus had taught about the God his disciples were to worship, teaching which had clearly associated himself and the Spirit with the Father, even if not in a set formula. It has been argued that these words were not part of the original text of Matthew, since Eusebius regularly in his pre-Nicene works quotes Matthew 28:19 in the shorter form ‘Go and make disciples of all nations in my name’, but the fact that no extant manuscript of Matthew has this reading suggests that this was rather Eusebius’ own abbreviation than a text he found in existing manuscripts.
R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 419–421.
Noticed TNTC commented about Eusebius. AB is the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, which has Matthew 28:19 commentary =>
19. baptizing them. In the New Testament baptizein (to “baptize,” literally used for dyeing of cloth) is the verb used to describe the act of initiation into the Messianic Community. But the verb—and the derived noun “baptism”—includes considerations which are always presupposed in the New Testament. This lustration with or in water assumed (a) repentance on the part of the person being baptized, the baptism itself conveying or implying forgiveness (cf. Acts 2:38); (b) faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.
There are two kinds of formal statements about baptismal status in the New Testament, one speaking of baptism “in the name of” and the other “into the name of” the Messiah. Without setting hard and definite limits, we may understand the first formula (“in the name of”) as including both the neophytes’ expressed faith in Jesus as Lord, and also the ceremonial action which accepted this profession of faith—i.e., the baptismal rite. “Into the name of,” however, seems in its various contexts to demand an interpretation which calls attention to the results of the baptismal rite. The neophyte baptized into the name of the Messiah thus not only pledges allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, but is also incorporated into fellowship with him. Hence the expression used in this verse describes an entrance into fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Father, … Son, … Holy Spirit. If we approach this verse with a fully developed post-Nicene orthodoxy in our minds, we shall be just as unsympathetic to our sources as are those who find in this verse a highly sophisticated and much later stage of doctrinal formulation retrojected into the text. For all we know, such a saying may have stood in the now-lost ending of Mark. Even apart from such speculation, the concept of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly as old as the Messianic Community as it is known to us in the New Testament. Cf., for example, 1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 3:23–24. In Mark we have “Father” and “Son” so obviously antithetical that — allowing for Jewish beliefs about “the Spirit” — it plainly opened the way to trinitarian belief. The antithesis Father-Son is found in Matt 16:27 and is very common in John. But what is also common in John is the emphasis on the Paraclete, clearly represented as being neither Father nor Son.
It seems plain from the early material in Acts that baptism was performed “in the name of” and also “into the name of” Jesus as Lord and Messiah. The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this saying as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description of what baptism accomplished. The evangelist, whom we must at least allow to have been familiar with the baptismal customs of the early Messianic Community, may well have added to baptizing them his own summary of what baptism accomplished.
It is as well to remember that the Didache also has this summary of baptism (Didache vii) and its reference to “running water” reflects an earlier Essene preoccupation.
W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 26, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 362–363.
Justin Martyr (A.D. 114-165) described Christian Baptism =>
chap. lxi.—christian baptism.
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.
Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 183.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristMy Logos library includes Tyndale New Testament Commentary | TNTC (21 vols.) that does NOT have the above quote.Your Logos library doesn't contain the accurate scripture of
Christin (Mark 1:34) either. Your library only contains antichristian doctrine.The Didache falsely claims to be the Lord's teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. Not only did these Apostates reject the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ, but you will also notice the denial of Baptism by complete water immersion. Also, you will see they have become like the Pharisees adding rules and regulations that the one being baptized is to Fast for one or two days. LOL.... at least they didn't say THREE days!
Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers is an Apostate opposed to Jesus Christ and denied the teaching of the Apostles. Such as (Acts 2:38)
Matthew 28:19: A Text Critical Investigation
"Here is the quote in its fuller context:
(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16:15 f occurs in a passage (16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 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 “foreign to the mouth of Jesus” (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:38,41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Rom 6:3 ff; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle’s earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.8 (emphasis mine)"
-
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 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.”
I was able to determine that this is from an older Tyndale commentary on Matthew (V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew in Tasker, ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1961)). Which I was able to access on archive.org.
The quote and context follows – bold mine:
- "Secondly, 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 [the words themselves] of Jesus, but either the evangelist’s words put into His mouth, or a later liturgical addition. It is argued that on the lips of Jesus they are an anachronism; that the early Church did not in fact use them as a baptismal formula till the second century; and that Eusebius of Caesarea in quoting this passage often omits or varies these words. On the other hand, the words are found in all extant Mss; and it is difficult to see why the evangelist should have inserted them if at the time when he was writing they formed no part of the Church’s liturgy. It is also difficult to suppose that, if Eusebius had really known of Mss which omitted these words, some trace of the influence of these Mss would not have survived in the textual tradition. Furthermore, it may well be that the true explanation why the early Church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name, is that the words of xxviii.19 were not originally meant by our Lord as a baptismal formula. He was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. There is good evidence that the Greek idiom eis to onoma ('into the name' not 'in the name') could convey this meaning. Moreover, it would seem that the baptism which the risen Christ is here instructing His disciples to practice was not just a revival of John's baptism of repentance, nor even a continuation of the baptism practised by Himself and His disciples earlier in His ministry. It was essentially a new sacrament, by which men and women were to come under the influence of the Triune God, to be used in His service. The words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are therefore emphatic and essential to the text. Without them, the reference to baptism would be indeterminate and conventional."
From the context above, it is clear, the author is not of the opinion that the words are "...a later liturgical addition"; but, just the opposite.
The quote without the context is in my opinion highly disingenuous; and thereby demonstrating the design of wrongfully manipulating words to express a desired end.
I'm not speaking to you Bro Rando as having been the manipulator of this text; but on the basis as one who in error did not do due diligence in their research thereby perpetuating the continuance of false information to suit one's agenda.
"In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out." – Conybeare" See that? ‘in my name’, struck out.
And of what importance is this? I wasn't engaging with you on Matt. 28:19 specifically; but, I was engaging with your questionable internet quote usage. For instance, the above quote you cite is from what published work of Conybeare?
Since we are speaking of Conybeare – here's a quote:
- "We know from the Gospels that the new converts were baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”" (Conybeare, W. J., & Howson, J. S. (1893). The life and epistles of St. Paul (New ed., Vol. 1, p. 517). Charles Scribner’s Sons.)
And here is the footnote for the above:
- "Matt. 28:19. We cannot agree with Neander (Planting and Leading, I. 25. and 188.) that the evidence of this positive command is at all impaired by our finding baptism described in the Acts and Epistles as baptism into the name of Jesus; the latter seems a condensed expression which would naturally be employed, just as we now speak of Christian baptism. The answer of St. Paul to the disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus (Acts 19:3), is a strong argument that the name of the Holy Ghost occurred in the baptismal formula then employed." (Conybeare, W. J., & Howson, J. S. (1893). The life and epistles of St. Paul (New ed.). Charles Scribner’s Sons.)
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristHere's a Swete's Greek Scripture of Isaiah 9:6 ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, υἱὸς ἐδόθη ἡμῖν, οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐγενήθη ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ, καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος· ἄξω γὰρ εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ ὑγείαν αὐτῷ.
for a child was born to us, a son was given to us, whose head was born on his shoulder, and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel;
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 21 My Logos library includes Tyndale New Testament Commentary | TNTC (21 vols.) that does NOT have the above quote.
@Brother Rando September 21 Your Logos library doesn't contain the accurate scripture of
Christin (Mark 1:34) either. Your library only contains antichristian doctrine.Discussion Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ? has my December 2021 reply that included Mark 1:34 copied from two English Bibles in my Logos library:
@BroRando November 30 * Remove Christ from scripture and violently persecute anyone who points it out.---Mark 1:34
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 2021 "Persecution" irony is the only CD poster being fooled by Mark 1:34
to be Christfalsehood repetition (brainwashing attempt) is @BroRando@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 2021 Koine Greek language does not use parenthesis () for punctuation. @BroRando screen shots plastered in many CD threads shows (χριστὸν εἶναι) where the parenthesis () shows these two words do not appear in many manuscripts. Westcott & Hort choose to incorporate a scribal note (χριστὸν εἶναι) (Christ to be) into Mark 1:34 text. Searching 330 English Bibles in my Logos library for Christ WITHIN {Milestone <mk1.34>} found two verses:
34 and he cured many′ that were sick with divers′ diseases, and |many demons| he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking,—because they knew him [to be Christ].
Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible: A Translation Designed to Set Forth the Exact Meaning, the Proper Terminology, and the Graphic Style of the Sacred Original (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010), Mk 1:34.
34 He healed many who were afflicted with various diseases and cast out many demons. However, he did not allow the demons to speak because they knew him to be the Christ. *
* Other manuscripts omit “to be the Christ"
Laurent Cleenewerck, ed., The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Laurent A. Cleenewerck, 2011), Mk 1:34.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 2021 Both translations agree with @BroRando screen shots about phrase (χριστὸν εἶναι) NOT being in other manuscripts.
Discussion Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ? has a question unanswered by @Brother Rando
@Pages September 1 And by the way, where on JW.org is their official statement regarding Mk. 1:34 that supports the above claim you so readily proclaim here on this forum?
My Logos library also has factual insight about Watchtower Society (JW.org) definition of "Christ" (Michael the Archangel):
Christ
Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, meaning anointed one, but they attach such a narrow definition to the term that they miss much of its significance. The Watchtower declares that “Jesus could not bear the title ‘Christ’ until he was anointed by Jehovah’s spirit at the time of his baptism in 29 c.e.” (January 1, 1969, page 29) It stresses this limited application of the title “Christ” because JW leaders view Jesus Christ as an earthly manifestation of Michael the Archangel, a mere created being who was given the assignment of fulfilling the role of Christ among men on earth.
The Bible, on the other hand, presents Jesus Christ as timeless: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8) He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8)
Since the angels, of course, know the timeless Christ of the Bible rather than the limited Christ of the Watchtower, it was no problem for the angel to call him “Christ” at the time of his birth, when announcement was made to the shepherds near Bethlehem: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11 nwt)
See also our chapters “Jesus Christ” and “Michael the Archangel.”
David A. Reed, Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).
@Brother Rando started discussion Is Jesus Christ (Michael the Archangel)?
Baptism is not mentioned in Luke 24:13-49 LEB =>
And behold, on that same day, two of them were traveling to a village named Emmaus that was sixty stadia distant from Jerusalem, and they were conversing with one another about all these things that had happened. And it happened that while they were conversing, and discussing, Jesus himself also approached and began to go along with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.
And he said to them, “What are these matters that you are discussing with one another as you are walking along?”
And they stood still, looking sad. And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to him, “Are you the only one living near Jerusalem and not knowing the things that have happened in it in these days?”
And he said to them, “What things?”
So they said to him, “The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, a man who was a prophet, powerful in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to a sentence of death, and crucified him. But we were hoping that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. But in addition to all these things, this is the third day since these things took place. But also some women from among us astonished us, who were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying they had seen even a vision of angels, who said that he was alive! And some of those with us went out to the tomb and found it like this, just as the women had also said, but him they did not see.”
And he said to them, “O foolish and slow in heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures. And they drew near to the village where they were going, and he acted as though he was going farther.
And they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is getting toward evening, and by this time the day is far spent.”
And he went in to stay with them. And it happened that when he reclined at the table with them, he took the bread and gave thanks, and after breaking it, he gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he became invisible to them.
And they said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was speaking with us on the road, while he was explaining the scriptures to us?”
And they got up that same hour and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven and those with them assembled, saying, “The Lord has really been raised, and has appeared to Simon!” And they began describing what happened on the road, and how he was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.
And while they were saying these things, he himself stood there among them. But they were startled and became terrified, and thought they had seen a ghost.
And he said to them, “Why are you frightened? And for what reason do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that I am I myself! Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”
And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they were still disbelieving because of joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Do you have anything to eat here?”
So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in front of them.
And he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”
Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending out what was promised by my Father upon you, but you stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Personally have no idea about the purpose of @Brother Rando quoting Luke 24:47 snippet from many translations on September 21 and quoting LXX Isaiah 9:6 on September 22 in a discussion about Matthew 28:19 baptism. Many replies by @Brother Rando lack due diligent research of outside sources: e.g. Eusebius. If JW.org was the primary internet source for @Brother Rando copy and paste, then signature assertion by @Brother Rando to "Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions." has implication about JW.org lacking due diligent research (not trustworthy), which is consistent with many failed prophetic predictions proving the Watchtower (JW.org) has NEVER been the correct communication channel for Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristJoseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible: A Translation Designed to Set Forth the Exact Meaning, the Proper Terminology, and the Graphic Style of the Sacred Original (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010), Mk 1:34.34 He healed many who were afflicted with various diseases and cast out many demons. However, he did not allow the demons to speak because they knew him to be the Christ. *
Christ was deleted from YOUR Mark 1:34 <~~~~~Click (no Christ)
- So he cured many who were ill with various sicknesses, and he expelled many demons, but he would not let the demons speak, for they knew him to be Christ. (Mark 1:34) NWT
- Demons also came out of many, crying out and saying: “You are the Son of God.” But rebuking them, he would not permit them to speak for they knew him to be the Christ. (Luke 4:41) NWT
You finally learned that the Joseph Bryant Rotherham Bible is the Emphasized Bible. Should you ever become a follower of Jesus Christ you will learn much more than this... This scripture reads, "and he cured many that were sick with divers diseases, and many demons he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking,—because they knew him [to be Christ]. (Mark 1:34) Rotherham Bible
It's in our Christian Watchtower Library and quotes are in some of our Bible Literature.
-
@Brother Rando September 22 Christ was deleted from YOUR Mark 1:34 <~~~~~Click (no Christ)
Where on JW.org is an official statement about Mark 1:34 that supports the deletion claim you proclaim here on this forum?
How is Mark 1:34 relevant to a discussion about "A scripture that awaits to be seen in the light... (Matthew 28:19)" ?
Noticed due diligent research about Matthew 28:19 sources (e.g. Eusebius) has been followed by @Brother Rando distracting comments.
@Brother Rando September 22 This scripture reads, "and he cured many that were sick with divers diseases, and many demons he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking,—because they knew him [to be Christ]. (Mark 1:34) Rotherham Bible
What do the brackets in the phrase '[to be Christ]' signify ?
@Brother Rando September 22 It's in our Christian Watchtower Library and quotes are in some of our Bible Literature.
JW.org's Christian Watchtower Library has three English Bibles that do NOT have Christ in Mark 1:34
The Bible in Living English => 34 and he cured many who were ill with various diseases, and expelled many demons, and would not let the demons speak, because they knew him.
American Standard Version => 34 And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him.
King James Version => 34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
@Brother Rando September 22 Should you ever become a follower of Jesus Christ you will learn much more than this
Which words are more important: Holy eternal ones spoken/inspired by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God OR lots of human words published by the Watchtower Society (JW.org) ?
Thankfully my friend & Righteous King יהוה Lord Salvation Jesus Christ reminded me of Matthew 5:10-13 😍 along with Romans 1:16-25 LEB =>
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in it from faith to faith, just as it is written, “But the one who is righteous by faith will live.”
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to immorality, that their bodies would be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God with a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for eternity. Amen.
To me, untrustworthy Watchtower Society (JW.org) is a creation, whose JW adherents do NOT serve the Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God who immensely ❤️ loves every JW (as well as every human) with Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God providing only one way of salvation to believe & become Holy.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristHow is Mark 1:34 relevant to a discussion about "A scripture that awaits to be seen in the light... (Matthew 28:19)" ?- 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.”
- Because Christ is removed from both scriptures. You won't find Christ in a trinitarian Bible @ (Mark 1:34) but only in a Christian Bible which are few.
- Hear of the Johannine comma? "Erasmus omitted the text of the Johannine Comma from his first and second editions of the Greek-Latin New Testament (the Novum Instrumentum omne) because it was not in his Greek manuscripts." It was a Catholic addition.
- The Catholic Church even rejects the teaching of Peter whom they claim is the first pope. Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
- Notice the phrase "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins"? Wow.. Just like Luke 24:47 whom catholics say you can't compare too. I wonder why?
and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’
and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem.
and repentance and forgiveness of sins to be proclaimed in His name to all nations, having begun from Jerusalem.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
@Brother Rando September 22 This scripture reads, "and he cured many that were sick with divers diseases, and many demons he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking,—because they knew him [to be Christ]. (Mark 1:34) Rotherham Bible
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Christ What do the brackets in the phrase '[to be Christ]' signify ?
It signifies repentance..
By the way, did you notice His Name is called the Angel of Great Counsel that the Jewish Sanhedrin wrote in the LXX? So it must be true, right? LOL...
Here's a Swete's Greek Scripture of Isaiah 9:6 ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, υἱὸς ἐδόθη ἡμῖν, οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐγενήθη ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ, καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος· ἄξω γὰρ εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ ὑγείαν αὐτῷ.
for a child was born to us, a son was given to us, whose head was born on his shoulder, and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel; LXX
-
"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.”"
Ah... yes, the old C.E. page 263 unattributed quote resurrected again and again. In his post of Dec. 2021 @Bill_Coley had documented, by that time, 15 posts of yours having quoted this opinion of an unknown source. The above quote seems to have more lives than a cat on the internet.
The above quotation is purely a statement by some unknown individual of the past regarding, in their words, “The baptismal formula" having been changed. And they take this supposed position based on what is written on page 263 of the C.E., Vol. II.
Well, I challenge you to unveil the identity of the person attributed to speaking, or writing, these words originally. I can say that David Bernard uses this quote in the later part of the 1980's, and I'm certain it existed prior to his usage.
Since I am not expecting any endeavor on your part to research the validity of such a quote, which unfortunately you continue to propagate by your repeated posting of it, I will provide the text of the 1907 edition page 262-263 for you, and all others, to read below.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic church, Charles George Herbermann, Volume II, 1907 Edition)
When you have read the above text be kind enough to state exactly where in this text the Catholic Church changed the formula.
-
I would actually update the quote since the Catholic teaches a different Jesus.
Matthew 28:19 KJV
“Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
If the Holy Ghost is God then can we conclude that God is a Ghost? It's rather a demonic teaching that God is a Ghost. I challenge You to show how the Apostles baptized new converts using the Bible.
Quote: "However, we only find that new converts were all baptized into the name of Jesus Christ only.
So one might ask, why the apparent disobedience of the Apostles and why there is not even one person who obeyed these supposed words of Jesus Christ from Matthew 28:19. Were they in rebellion or something? Did they understand this command differently than Trinitarians do today? Or did Jesus tell them something different than what is portrayed in the above text?
Here are all the scriptures relating to baptism in the New Testament.
Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Romans 6:3 “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
There is no record in the Bible of anyone baptizing in three separate names of three individual persons. Lets back up for a moment and review Matthew 28:19 with more information. Lets look at verses 16 thru 20 as well.
"v16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. v17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. v18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. v19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: v20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Verse 18 says “All power is given unto ME in heaven and earth.” That power is the “Authority” by God handed down to Christ as God was working thru Christ. Refer also to John 5:27 and 43." End of Quote: https://www.truthseeker.church/matthew28
-
I'm very aware of the position on Matt. 28:19 you hold to; and of course, I am in disagreement with that position you hold. I'm not, per se, engaging with you on the text of Matt. 28:19 as I stated in a prior post in this thread. I am speaking directly to you regarding the veracity of certain quotes supplied by yourself in your posting on this forum.
Specifically, I asked two definite questions of you – nothing vague; in which your entire response never came even remotely close to answering. I will ask again.
First question I asked of you (paraphrasing myself):
Who, exactly, is it that we can credit with this persistent unsubstantiated quotation – "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.”" – that abounds on the internet regarding Matt. 28:19?
Second question I asked of you (again paraphrasing myself):
Where, on page 263 of the 1907 edition of "The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II", attached in my previous post, did the Catholic Church change the formula as stated by the quotation?
"I would actually update the quote since the Catholic teaches a different Jesus. "
Well, and fine, but neither question I specifically asked of you inquired as to your preference of how the quotation ought to be modified, or whether it should be modified.
Please, just answer my two questions.
-
Mark 11:29
Jesus said to them: “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.
Mark 11:30
Was the baptism by John from heaven or from men? Answer me.”
Since you are unable to show me one single scripture of the Apostles baptizing in three separate persons or in three separate voices, then I suggest you read the entire section and it's more than two pages.
-
Well, no answer is sort of an answer I suppose.
I take your reply to mean you do not have any knowledge as to the author, or provenance, of the quotation in question. And additionally, you find no support for the quotation on page 263 of the Catholic Encyclopedia to which you can address.
-
@Pages Well, no answer is sort of an answer I suppose.
I take your reply to mean you do not have any knowledge as to the author, or provenance, of the quotation in question. And additionally, you find no support for the quotation on page 263 of the Catholic Encyclopedia to which you can address.
When you acknowledge how the Apostles baptized new converts to Christianity in the First Century. Then I will give you the answers you seek. Otherwise, I will simply quote my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
- However, as Jesus continued teaching in the temple, he said: “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is David’s son? (Mark 12:35)
- By the holy spirit, David himself said, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet.”’ David himself calls him Lord, so how can it be that he is his son?” (Mark 12:36-37)
Romans 1:3 concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh,
Revelation 22:16 “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star.’”
-
When you acknowledge how the Apostles baptized new converts to Christianity in the First Century. Then I will give you the answers you seek. Otherwise, I will simply quote my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
In response, the above mechanism is non-relevant to my speaking directly to you regarding the veracity of the three quotations supplied by you in this thread. All of which, have been shown to be a manipulated misquoting of the source; thereby, simply being nothing more than false statements.
The normal response by someone who knows their source material to be correct, verifiable, and true, is to point to wherein that particular source material lays the vindication of the persons use of it, and not only that; but in doing so also gives a standing to that same source material's value and accuracy regarding the issue under discussion.
So, I, and anyone else reading this exchange, have already your answer: a resounding no – you have no knowledge as to the origination of the Catholic Encyclopedia quote, nor are you able to find support for it within the page referenced by the quote.
I want to make clear that I'm not attributing the manipulation and misquoting action of these three quotations to you – but I am providing you with the knowledge as to the spurious nature these quotes have, in the hope you will stop using them.
-
In the Catholic Catechism above you will see the following paragraph.
“Into Christ. The Bible tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ (no. 6). They belong to Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) tells us of baptizing “in the name (person) of Jesus.” -- a better translation would be “into the name (person) of Jesus.” Only in the 4th Century did the formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” become customary.” — (Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D., Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164)
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot 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.”
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 +.”
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.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8:
“Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”
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,”...”
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.”
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.”
This Apocrypha satire should be exposed and dismissed as "the angel flying in midheaven has everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people." (Rev 14:6)
I look forward to the day to open up the New World Translation with the correct rending, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name," (Matthew 28:19)
- Note: Apocrypha was later applied to writings that were hidden not because of their divinity but because of their questionable value to the church. In general use, the word apocrypha has come to mean "false, spurious, bad, or heretical".
-
During a sermon today, I heard a phrase "Devotion inspires Passion". My devotion to Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God inspires my passion for learning & growing in Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God, which includes enjoying ongoing Holy Hand touching me per Psalm 139:4
Human words correctly aligned with eternal truth of Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God have good value - 1 Thessalonians 5:16-24 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) =>
Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in everything; for this is the will of אלהים God for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but examine all things; hold fast to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. Now may the אלהים God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete, blameless at the coming of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, who also will do this.
Our spiritual adversary is the father of lies, who is a master manipulator that craftily mixes falsehoods with truth. The intense hatred in our spiritual adversary always wants to disrupt true ❤️ Love relationship in/with Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God in any which way: e.g. ongoing devotion to human organizational teachings (so a published change requires devotee change to be like minded OR be shunned from fellowship - passionate peer pressure).
Signature of @Brother Rando shows passion for JW.org along with @Brother Rando often linking to JW.org
If JW.org was the primary internet source for @Brother Rando copy and paste, then signature assertion by @Brother Rando to "Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions." has implication about JW.org lacking due diligent research (not trustworthy), which is consistent with many failed prophetic predictions proving the Watchtower Society (JW.org) has NEVER been the correct communication channel for Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.
If JW.org was not the primary internet source for @Brother Rando copy and paste, then posting many false statements by @Brother Rando passionately implies JW.org does not have accurate answers for your questions.
To me, false statements feel like sand, which are worthless for my faith beliefs. When wind & rain come, sand will be washed away.
@Brother Rando September 24 When you acknowledge how the Apostles baptized new converts to Christianity in the First Century. Then I will give you the answers you seek. Otherwise, I will simply quote my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
@Pages September 24 In response, the above mechanism is non-relevant to my speaking directly to you regarding the veracity of the three quotations supplied by you in this thread. All of which, have been shown to be a manipulated misquoting of the source; thereby, simply being nothing more than false statements.
@Pages September 24 The normal response by someone who knows their source material to be correct, verifiable, and true, is to point to wherein that particular source material lays the vindication of the persons use of it, and not only that; but in doing so also gives a standing to that same source material's value and accuracy regarding the issue under discussion.
@Pages September 24 So, I, and anyone else reading this exchange, have already your answer: a resounding no – you have no knowledge as to the origination of the Catholic Encyclopedia quote, nor are you able to find support for it within the page referenced by the quote.
The next comment by @Brother Rando began with many outside quotes, simply different than quoting "my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" - albeit I do not know what those words passionately mean to @Brother Rando as some pasted comments cannot be verified: e.g.
@Brother Rando September 25 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8:
@Brother Rando September 25 “Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”
Searching all books in my Logos library (includes The Catholic Encyclopedia) for changed NEAR "ancient baptism" found one result:
Let the reader judge whether the facts adduced respecting Ancient Baptisteries, and Ritual Regulations and Confessions, are not confirmatory of immersion as the primary and ancient baptism, and of a change having taken place from immersion to pouring and sprinkling.
R. Ingham, A Handbook of Christian Baptism, vol. I (London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1865), 138.
My copy and paste includes a link to the digital resource with location of quoted text. Citation also names the Author with publishing information.
In this discussion, two "quotes" of The Catholic Encyclopedia by @Brother Rando do not exist. My interpretation of those false "quotes" is treating them like sand to be discarded.
Noticed first outside source quote by @Brother Rando on September 25 included author:
@Brother Rando September 25 — (Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D., Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164)
My Logos library has 73 digital resources with "Catechism" in the title, but does not have this Bible Catechism. by Rev. John C Kersten (digital edition not available for me to purchase a license for use in my Logos library). My internet search did not verify the quoted text, but did show this book is available for purchase. Also my internet search found an Apostolic Unitarian baptism article, which has been selectively copied by @Brother Rando & pasted into this discussion, which includes the Bible Catechism picture (notably missing from @Brother Rando comments is identification of source for many comment lines & picture being copied from an Apostolic Unitarian baptism article that is a form of plagiarism).
The Vatican website has Catechism of the Catholic Church (in English), which includes II. Baptism in the Economy of Salvation (one of eight pages in Article 1 THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM). The Vatican's description about baptism did not mention the 4th century.
@Brother Rando September 25 A History of The Christian Church:
@Brother Rando September 25 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).”
My Logos library has A History of the Christian Church where Section 13 is Baptism (pages 93-97) =>
SECTION XIII. BAPTISM
Baptism is older than Christianity. The rite gave to John, the “Forerunner,” his name. He baptized Jesus. His disciples and those of Jesus baptized, though Jesus Himself did not. The origin of the rite is uncertain; but it was probably a spiritualization of the old Levitical washings. Jewish teaching, traceable probably to a period as early as the time of Christ, required proselytes to the Hebrew faith not merely to be circumcised, but to be baptized. It seems probable that John did not invent the rite, and simply used contemporary practice. It was a fitting symbol of the spiritual purification that followed the repentance that he preached. The mystery religions had equivalent rites (ante, p. 10); but so purely Jewish was that primitive Christianity to which baptism belongs, that it is inconceivable that they should have had any effect on the origin of the practice, though they were profoundly to influence its development on Gentile soil. Peter represents baptism as the rite of admission to the church, and to the reception of the Holy Spirit. As the sacrament of admission baptism always stood till the religious divisions of post-Reformation days. It so stands for the vast majority of Christians at present.
With Paul, baptism was not merely the symbol of cleansing from sin, it involved a new relation to Christ, and a participation in His death and resurrection. Though Paul apparently did not think baptism essential to salvation his view approached that of the initiations of the mystery religions and his converts in Corinth, at least, held an almost magical conception of the rite, being baptized in behalf of their dead friends, that the departed might be benefited thereby. Baptism soon came to be regarded as indispensable. The writer of the fourth Gospel represented Christ as declaring: “Verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” The appendix to Mark pictured the risen Christ as saying: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” This conviction but deepened. To Hermas (115–140), baptism was the very foundation of the church, which “is builded upon waters.” Even to the philosophical Justin (153) baptism effected “regeneration” and “illumination.” In Tertullian’s estimate it conveyed eternal life itself.
By the time of Hermas and of Justin the view was general that baptism washed away all previous sins. As in the mystery religions it had become the great rite of purification, initiation, and rebirth into the eternal life. Hence it could be received but once. The only substitute was martyrdom, “which stands in lieu of the fontal bathing, when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.” 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 Matt. 28:19. That text is early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching, 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).
Regarding persons baptized, the strong probability is that, till past the middle of the second century, they were those only of years of discretion. The first mention of infant baptism, and an obscure one, was about 185, by Irenæus. Tertullian spoke distinctly of the practice, but discouraged it as so serious a step that delay of baptism was desirable till character was formed. Hence he doubted its wisdom for the unmarried. Less earnest men than Tertullian felt that it was unwise to use so great an agency of pardon till one’s record of sins was practically made up. A conspicuous instance, by no means solitary, was the Emperor Constantine, who postponed his baptism till his death-bed. To Origen infant baptism was an apostolic custom. Cyprian favored its earliest possible reception. Why infant baptism arose there is no certain evidence. Cyprian, in the letter just cited, argued in its favor from the doctrine of original sin. Yet the older general opinion seems to have held to the innocency of childhood. More probable explanations are the feeling that outside the church there is no salvation, and the words attributed to Christ in John 3:5. Christian parents would not have their children fail of entering the Kingdom of God. Infant baptism did not, however, become universal till the sixth century, largely through the feeling already noted in Tertullian, that so cleansing a sacrament should not be lightly used.
As to the method of baptism, it is probable that the original form was by immersion, complete or partial. That is implied in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. Pictures in the catacombs would seem to indicate that the submersion was not always complete. The fullest early evidence is that of the Teaching: “Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water upon the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Affusion was, therefore, a recognized form of baptism. Cyprian cordially upheld it. Immersion continued the prevailing practice till the late Middle Ages in the West; in the East it so remains. The Teaching and Justin show that fasting and an expression of belief, together with an agreement to live the Christian life were necessary prerequisites. By the time of Tertullian an elaborate ritual had developed. The ceremony began with the formal renunciation by the candidate of the devil and all his works. Then followed the threefold immersion. On coming from the fount the newly baptized tasted a mixture of milk and honey, in symbolism of his condition as a new-born babe in Christ. To that succeeded anointing with oil and the laying on of the hands of the baptizer in token of the reception of the Holy Spirit. Baptism and what was later known as confirmation were thus combined. Tertullian also shows the earliest now known existence of Christian sponsors, i. e., god-parents. The same customs of fasting and sponsors characterized the worship of Isis.
In the apostolic age baptism was administered doubtless not only by Apostles and other leaders, but widely by those charismatically eminent in the church. By 110–117 Ignatius, in the interest of unity, was urging, “it is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast.” In Tertullian’s time, “of giving it, the chief priest, who is the bishop, has the right; in the next place the presbyters and deacons … besides these even laymen have the right, for what is equally received can be equally given.” In the Greek and Roman Churches baptism still continues the only sacrament which any Christian, or indeed any seriously intending person, can administer in case of necessity.
The middle of the third century saw a heated discussion over the validity of heretical baptism. Tertullian had regarded it as worthless; and his was undoubtedly the prevalent opinion of his time. After the Novatian schism (see p. 102) Bishop Stephen of Rome (254–257) advanced the claim that baptism, even by heretics, was effectual if done in proper form. His motives seem to have been partly the growing feeling that sacraments are of value in themselves, irrespective of the character of the administrant, and partly a desire to facilitate the return of the followers of Novatian. This interpretation was energetically resisted by Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and led to certain important assertions of the authority of the Roman bishop. The deaths of Stephen and Cyprian gave a pause to the dispute; but the Roman view grew into general acceptance in the West. The East reached no such unanimity of judgment.
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919), 93–97.
@Brother Rando September 25 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?
Misleading wording by @Brother Rando asserts origin of Matthew 28:19 that is NOT mentioned in Section 4 The Catholic Church (Pages 59-63)
SECTION IV. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
...
While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of 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 Matt. 28:19 — the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles’ Creed. What antecedents in Asia Minor, if any, it may have had is still a question in scholarly dispute. Without symbolic authority in the Orient, all the Western churches received this creed from Rome, and it was regarded, by the time of Tertullian at least, as having apostolic authority, that is as a summary of apostolic teaching. In its original form it read:
“I believe in God the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; the third day He rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, being seated at the right hand of the Father, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, holy church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh.”
...
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919), 59–63.
My Logos library has Sinaiticus Matthew 28:19 =>
πορευθεντες μαθητευσατε πα(ν)τα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους · εις το ονομα του πρ̅ς και του ϋϊου και του αγιου π̅ν̅ς̅ ˙
International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), Codex Sinaiticus: Septuagint and New Testament (Cambridge, UK: The Codex Sinaiticus Project Board, 2012), Mt 28:19.
εις το ονομα του πρ̅ς και του ϋϊου και του αγιου π̅ν̅ς̅ => into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (my literal translation choosing of for genitive/ablative spelling because ablative from does not fit the context).
πρ̅ς is an abbreviation for πατρος (Father). π̅ν̅ς̅ is an abbreviation for πνευματος (Spirit).
Curetonianus manuscript is missing a leaf =>
[The leaf of S which contained Matt 28:7–Mk 1:12 is missing.]
F. Crawford Burkitt, ed., Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence: Translation, vol. I (Cambridge, at the University Press, 1904), Mt 28:7.
My Logos library does not have Bobiensis.
@Brother Rando September 25 This Apocrypha satire ...
@Brother Rando * Note: Apocrypha was later applied to writings that were hidden not because of their divinity but because of their questionable value to the church. In general use, the word apocrypha has come to mean "false, spurious, bad, or heretical".
Apocrypha satire links to Wikipedia Apocrypha page, which has an opening sentence in Writings of questionable value:
Apocrypha was also applied to writings that were hidden not because of their divinity but because of their questionable value to the church.
Wikipedia Apocrypha page has an opening sentence in Spurious writings:
In general use, the word apocrypha came to mean "of doubtful authenticity".[13]
By the way, Wikipedia Apocrypha page mentions Martin Luther in Other:
Martin Luther did not class apocryphal books as being scripture, but in the German Luther Bible (1534) the apocrypha are published in a separate section from the other books, although the Lutheran and Anglican lists are different.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
I'm very certain you will find legitimate statements to quote that are in alignment with your view regarding Matt. 28:19. Having said that, my concern is strictly with what I'll term as compromised quotation, and its usage; in which, I have specifically engaged with throughout this thread.
In your most recent reply to me it is unfortunate that more of this style exhibits itself. A couple of highlights from your post exemplifying this type of stylization are provided below.
"Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?"
It seems that whoever made the above statement is either ignorant in this area; or perhaps, at worst, just dishonest and misleading.
Basic text critical facts:
- Codex Bobiensis (designated K) is a late 4th or early 5th century Latin manuscript having only the first 15 chapters of Matthew's gospel.
- Codex Curetonianus is a 5th century Syriac manuscript where Matthew's gospel ends at Matt. 23:25.
- Codex Sinaiticus does indeed have Matt.28:19:
ⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛⲱ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲉⲡⲓ ⲅⲏⲥ ⲡⲟⲣⲉⲩⲑⲉⲛⲧⲉⲥ ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲉⲩⲥⲁⲧⲉ ⲡⲁ̅ ⲧⲁ ⲧⲁ ⲉⲑⲛⲏ ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓ ⲍⲟⲛⲧⲉⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩⲥ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲟ ⲟⲛⲟⲙⲁ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲡ̅ⲣ̅ⲥ̅ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲩ̈ⲓ̈ⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲓ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲅⲓⲟⲩ ⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲥ̅ (Matt. 28:19-20)
"On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19."
Exactly where on page 61 does, as you state, Williston Walker "revile" the origin and purpose of Matt. 28:19? Would you point that out please.
"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! "
Someone is taking a great amount of liberty with Walker's writing – quite subjective and inflammatory language in my opinion; but, for those who wish to know what Walker actually wrote in his published work can read the text below.
Page 60-61 from A History of The Christian Church (Williston Walker, 1918, C. Scribner's Sons):
(click on image to enlarge)
"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."
As written above there are three parenthetical insertions not found in the text on page 95 of Walker's work.
The first two, "(but not the original)" and "(*or interpolated)", are inserted opinions of someone other than the author; and the last "(or the Didache)" is informative but not original to the text.
Page 94-95 from A History of The Christian Church (Williston Walker, 1918, C. Scribner's Sons):
(click on image to enlarge)
I'll stop at this point, as it is, in my estimation, unnecessary to go further with demonstrating the poster's use of questionable quotations, and the distorted commentary surrounding those quotations.
I see @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus has responded to your post as well with similar information.
Post edited by Pages on -
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristMy Logos library has 73 digital resources with "Catechism" in the title, but does not have this Bible Catechism. by Rev. John C Kersten (digital edition not available for me to purchase a license for use in my Logos library).Of course you can't find it but is easily found outside your demonic sources that removed Christ from scripture.
In the Catholic Catechism above you will see the following paragraph.
“Into Christ. The Bible tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ (no. 6). They belong to Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) tells us of baptizing “in the name (person) of Jesus.” -- a better translation would be “into the name (person) of Jesus.” Only in the 4th Century did the formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” become customary.” — (Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D., Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
CHRIST"Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water upon the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”This didn't come from the scriptures but the rather the dogma of the catholic church which left the teaching of the Apostles including Jesus Christ. Click on the Apostate teaching see the same wording used in the Didache Chapter Seven and Verse One. An apostate teaching that was introduced deceptively by the Superfine Apostles who left Christ.
Searching all books in my Logos library (includes The Catholic Encyclopedia) for changed NEAR "ancient baptism" found one result:
Let the reader judge whether the facts adduced respecting Ancient Baptisteries, and Ritual Regulations and Confessions, are not confirmatory of immersion as the primary and ancient baptism, and of a change having taken place from immersion to pouring and sprinkling.
R. Ingham, A Handbook of Christian Baptism, vol. I (London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1865), 138.
Reading just a few lines, one can see how heavy handed this Apostate Church was with man-made traditions. Such big fat hypocrites! Can't get baptized unless you Fast for one or two days. Need to use cold water, if not, then warm. Need to use running water, if not, then pour water on the head three times! Jump on one leg and yell fly me to the moon! What a Cult!
Therefore the finding of the current Matthew 28:19 is just as Fake and Spurious as the Apostates who put it there. The Didache is just one of many Apostolic Constitutions that served as the basis for twisting and altering the Bible. It shows the deceptive moral and religious conditions of the third and fourth centuries, not what the Bible really teaches.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 25 My Logos library has 73 digital resources with "Catechism" in the title, but does not have this Bible Catechism. by Rev. John C Kersten (digital edition not available for me to purchase a license for use in my Logos library).
@Brother Rando September 26 Of course you can't find it but is easily found outside your demonic sources that removed Christ from scripture.
Where on JW.org is an official statement about Mark 1:34 that supports the deletion claim you proclaim here on this forum?
What is your opinion about JW.org Christian Watchtower Library having English Bibles that do NOT have Christ in Mark 1:34 ?
The Bible in Living English => 34 and he cured many who were ill with various diseases, and expelled many demons, and would not let the demons speak, because they knew him.
American Standard Version => 34 And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him.
King James Version => 34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
@Brother Rando September 22 This scripture reads, "and he cured many that were sick with divers diseases, and many demons he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking,—because they knew him [to be Christ]. (Mark 1:34) Rotherham Bible
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Christ What do the brackets in the phrase '[to be Christ]' signify ?
@Brother Rando September 23 It signifies repentance..
Puzzling assertion because repentance is NOT in Mark 1:34
Rotherham Bible New Testament includes explanation =>
Signs and Abbreviations
EMPLOYED IN THIS WORK
Relating to the GREEK TEXT
[ ]: enclose words with respect to which ancient authorities are not unanimous.
[[ ]]: enclose words regarded by the Greek Editors as interpolations, but which for some reason they preferred not to remove from the Text.
Or (WH): [Westcott and Hort] a Various Reading in the Greek, not necessarily much inferior to that given in the Text. For the translation of these readings the present translator is, of course, alone responsible.
Add (WH): a similar addition, for which there is only partial support in the documentary evidence.
Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible: A Translation Designed to Set Forth the Exact Meaning, the Proper Terminology, and the Graphic Style of the Sacred Original, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010), ii.
According to Rotherham, the phrase '[to be Christ]' are words with respect to which ancient authorities are not unanimous. (in other words, a textual variant)
@Brother Rando September 26 In the Catholic Catechism above you will see the following paragraph.
@Brother Rando September 26 “Into Christ. The Bible tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ (no. 6). They belong to Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) tells us of baptizing “in the name (person) of Jesus.” -- a better translation would be “into the name (person) of Jesus.” Only in the 4th Century did the formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” become customary.” — (Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D., Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164)
Please provide screen shots of the entire Baptism article in this Bible Catechism.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 25 My Logos library has A History of the Christian Church where Section 13 is Baptism (pages 93-97) =>
SECTION XIII. BAPTISM
...
As to the method of baptism, it is probable that the original form was by immersion, complete or partial. That is implied in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. Pictures in the catacombs would seem to indicate that the submersion was not always complete. The fullest early evidence is that of the Teaching: “Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water upon the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Affusion was, therefore, a recognized form of baptism. Cyprian cordially upheld it. Immersion continued the prevailing practice till the late Middle Ages in the West; in the East it so remains. The Teaching and Justin show that fasting and an expression of belief, together with an agreement to live the Christian life were necessary prerequisites. By the time of Tertullian an elaborate ritual had developed. The ceremony began with the formal renunciation by the candidate of the devil and all his works. Then followed the threefold immersion. On coming from the fount the newly baptized tasted a mixture of milk and honey, in symbolism of his condition as a new-born babe in Christ. To that succeeded anointing with oil and the laying on of the hands of the baptizer in token of the reception of the Holy Spirit. Baptism and what was later known as confirmation were thus combined. Tertullian also shows the earliest now known existence of Christian sponsors, i. e., god-parents. The same customs of fasting and sponsors characterized the worship of Isis.
...
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919), 93–97.
@Brother Rando September 26 This didn't come from the scriptures but the rather the dogma of the catholic church which left the teaching of the Apostles including Jesus Christ. Click on the Apostate teaching see the same wording used in the Didache Chapter Seven and Verse One. An apostate teaching that was introduced deceptively by the Superfine Apostles who left Christ.
This refers to the Teaching quote in a paragraph written by Williston Walker. Reading assertion by @Brother Rando 'This didn't come from the scriptures but the rather the dogma of the catholic church ...' leaves me wondering How can this be ?
Please provide catholic church dogma documentation that predates the Διδαχὴ (Didache) Teaching.
Please provide credible evidence for deceptive introduction 'by the Superfine Apostles who left Christ.'
My observation as an outsider to the Watchtower Society & the Catholic Church is the Watchtower Society has passionate peer pressure for doctrinal belief compliance. In contrast is one of my college roomates who did not believe all catholic church dogma, but was a Catholic Church member for community fellowship. Another Catholic friend described dogma having authoritative hierarchy (some dogma documents are more important for expressing beliefs). Notably missing from Watchtower Society (JW.org) assertions about catholic church beliefs is agreement by catholic church representative(s). Wikipedia Catholic Church begins with =>
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2019.[4][7] As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution,[8] it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilisation.[9] The church consists of 24 particular churches, including the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as almost 3,500 dioceses and eparchies located around the world. The pope, who is the bishop of Rome, is the chief pastor of the church.[10] The bishopric of Rome, known as the Holy See, is the central governing authority of the church. The administrative body of the Holy See, the Roman Curia, has its principal offices in Vatican City, a small enclave of the Italian city of Rome, of which the pope is head of state.
Wikipedia List of Christian denominations by number of members shows 50.1 % Catholic. World population is nearly 8 billion so billions of people have NEVER been baptized Catholic (myself included).
@Brother Rando September 16 I look forward to the day to open up the New World Translation with the correct rending, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name," (Matthew 28:19)
To me, the idea of being baptized into the name of יהוה Salvation would also identify me with all of Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God (with baptism by immersion reminding me of the death, burial, & resurrection of יהוה Salvation, redeemer יהוה Yahweh of hosts). All of Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God allowed יהוה Salvation to have human body crucified & All of Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God resurrected human body from the grave.
Two יהוה subjects (voices) have singular verb & pronouns showing unique אלהים God in Isaiah 44:6-8 LEB =>
Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no אלהים god besides me. And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming. You must not tremble, and you must not be paralyzed with fear. Have I not made you hear from of old and declared it, and you are my witnesses? Is there a god besides me? And there is no rock! I know none!”
God in Isaiah 44:6 has plural אלהים elohim spelling while god in Isaiah 44:8 has singular אלוה eloha spelling.
To me, יהוה Yahweh of hosts humbly left Holy Heaven to be clothed in human flesh as The Son of Man, who is the King Righteous (Melchizedek) and shares " יהוה of Righteousness we " name as it is written in Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB =>
“Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’
To me, the pronoun 'our' in phrase ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’ expresses Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God's point of view as the last two Hebrew words יהוה צדקנו have literal meaning " יהוה of Righteousness we " (consistent with One Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God being uniquely unlike any created human being by having more than one voice, a plural unique God as described in Deuteronomy 6:4).
Keep Smiling 😊
