daughterforligh
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 73
Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent.
Now it is supported by only False Prophets
and those who do not know.
NOTE: I am not ONEness.
Matt.28… Jesus ‘supposedly’ said:
[19] Go you (11 Apostles) and teach all nations,
baptizing them:
>> ‘in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost.’ << (The underlined was falsified.)
The common people have been deceived for many generations.
Correct baptism calling on Jesus, from under the water,
in the immersion state,
is still immediately effective for everyone who performs it.
Then we get the Gifts.
Strait and narrow/ precise is the WAY that still works.
Acts.22:16
[16] And now (Paul) why tarry?.. (hurry)
Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,
calling on the name of
the LORD = (Jesus, the Mighty God, the incarnated God of Israel)
Acts.2
[37] Now when they (the Israelites) heard this,
they were pricked in their heart,
and asked Peter and to the rest of the Apostles:
Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[38] Then Peter (the GOD and Christ sent (Apostle)
said to them:
Repent, (turn back to the Mighty God = Jesus)
and every one of you (without exception),
be baptized,
in (into, calling on) the name of
Jesus Christ, (the incarnated Mighty God of Israel),
for the remission (pardon) of sins,
and you shall receive (from Jesus),
the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[39] For the promise, (of the Spirit), is to you, (Israelites)
and to your children
and to all who are afar off, (in the Gentile countries)
even as many as the LORD our GOD (the Father)
shall call (to his Son)
+++
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the CHURCH HISTORIAN
and Bishop of Caesarea.
On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew,
that he had in his library in Caesarea.
According to this eyewitness,
of an unaltered (genuine) Book of Matthew,
that could have been the original book,
or the first copy of the original of Matthew.
Eusebius informs us of Jesus'>> actual words to his disciples (Apostles),
in the >> original text of Matthew 28:19
"With one word and voice He (Jesus) said to His disciples:
"Go, and make disciples of all nations >> in My Name,
teaching them to observe (OBEY) all things,
whatever I have commanded you.
" That "Name" is Jesus.
+++
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19,
it says:
"It is the central piece of evidence
for the traditional (Trinitarian) view.
If it was undisputed, this would of course, be decisive,
but its trustworthiness is impugned,
on grounds of
textual criticism,
literary criticism
and historical criticism."
The same Encyclopedia further states that:
"The obvious explanation of the silence
of the New Testament on the triune name,
and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts
and (by) Paul,
is that this other formula was the earlier (original) one,
and the triune formula is a later (illegal) addition."
+++
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
(illegally) expanded by the [Catholic] church."
+++
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words
in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost
are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus,
but...a later liturgical (illegal) addition."
+++
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony,
for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula,
[in the Name of Jesus]
down into the second century
is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19,
the Trinitarian formula was later (illegally) inserted."
+++
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable
by logic
or by Scriptural proofs,
The term Trias was first used,
by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),
(The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture...
"The chief Trinitarian (3=1) text in the NT
is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19..
This late post-resurrection saying,
not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT,
has been viewed by some scholars,
as an (illegal) interpolation into Matthew.
It has also been pointed out
that the idea of making disciples,
is continued in teaching them,
so that the intervening reference to baptism
with its Trinitarian (3=1) formula
was perhaps a later (illegal) insertion into the saying.
Finally, Eusebius's form of
the (ancient) text
("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity)
has had certain advocates.
Although the Trinitarian formula is now found
in the modern-day book of Matthew,
this does not guarantee its source
in the historical teaching of Jesus.
It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula
as derived from early (Catholic) Christian,
perhaps Syrian
or Palestinian baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4),
and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's (3=1)
teaching about God,
Christ,
and the Spirit:..."
+++
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus however,
cannot have given His disciples (the Apostles)
this Trinitarian order of baptism,
after His resurrection
for the New Testament knows only ONE baptism,
>> in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5
Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 1:13-15),
which still occurs even in the second and third centuries,
while the Trinitarian (3=1) formula occurs only in Matt 28:19,
and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1
and Justin, Apol. 1:61.
Finally, the distinctly liturgical character
of the formula...is strange;
it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas...
the formal authenticity of Matt 28:19
must be disputed..." page 435.
+++
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under "Baptism,"says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes
>> a later ecclesiastical situation,
that its universalism
is >> contrary to the facts of early Christian history,
and its Trinitarian formula
(is) >> foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
+++
New Revised Standard Version says
this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim that this formula
is >> falsely ascribed to Jesus
and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition,
for >> nowhere in the book of
Acts (or any other book of the Bible)
is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
+++
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19
he makes this statement:
"It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula,
so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned,
is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage
(illegally) 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 (illegal) doctrinal expansion.
Instead of the words baptizing
in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost
we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
+++
Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951,
page 133 under Kerygma of the >> Hellenistic Church
and the Sacraments.
The >> historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19
>> was (illegally) altered, is openly confessed to, very plainly.
As to the rite of baptism,
it was normally consummated,as a bath [not according to Peter]
in which the one receiving baptism
completely submerged,
and if possible in flowing (LIVING) water,
as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb 10:22,
Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather,
and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says.
According to the last passage,
[the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices,
in case of the need (necessity)
if water is
three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine]
on the head.
The one baptizing
the one who is baptizing,
names (calls) over the one being baptized,
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
later (illegally) expanded
to the name of the Father,
Son,
and the Holy Spirit."
+++
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21.
Professor Stuart G. Hall,
was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History,
at King's College, London England.
Dr. Hall makes the factual statement
that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism
was >> not the original form of Christian Baptism,
rather the original was >> Jesus name baptism.
"In the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit,"
although those words were not used,
as they later (illegally) are, as a formula.
Not all baptisms fitted this rule."
Dr Hall further, states:
"More common
and perhaps more ancient (ORIGINAL) was the simple
"In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ."
This practice was known
among Marcionites and >> Orthodox.
It is certainly the subject of
>> controversy in Rome and Africa about 254,
as the anonymous tract
De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
+++
Cont'd
