Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

FZ even put in "..." to hide the words that are in the Bible harmony text:

"nstead of baptizing men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

None dare call this scholarship!

FZ must of missed Chambers' notation of 1 John 5:7. Sorry, my friend FZ, but Paul used pagan Greek philosophers who strengthened his arguments to the Hellenized Judeans and Romans. Didn't use those who weakened his arguments. Brother FZ, how much do you know about the Greeks whom Paul quoted?

[FlamingZword]

“Many believed their doctrine, professed allegiance to Jesus Christ, by being baptized in his name…Own dear reader, the justice of your condemnation; forsake your sins; confess your guild in having so long despised and disesteemed the only saviour; be immersed in his name for the remission of your sins through his blood:…So the claims of a person to the honor and priveleges of a Christian are defective, till he has put on Christ by being baptized in his name…They had heard the gospel, believed in Jesus, been baptized in his name, and were united in holy fellowship…Perhaps thou hast obtained mercy, yet hast not made that public profession of it which Christ requires, by being baptized in his name.” The Primitive Church Magazine (1841) p. 10, 11, 59, 193, 269

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

“Many believed their doctrine, professed allegiance to Jesus Christ, by being baptized in his name…Own dear reader, the justice of your condemnation; forsake your sins; confess your guild in having so long despised and disesteemed the only saviour; be immersed in his name for the remission of your sins through his blood:…So the claims of a person to the honor and priveleges of a Christian are defective, till he has put on Christ by being baptized in his name (p. 59) …They had heard the gospel, believed in Jesus, been baptized in his name, and were united in holy fellowship (p.193) …Perhaps thou hast obtained mercy, yet hast not made that public profession of it which Christ requires, by being baptized in his name.” The Primitive Church Magazine (1841) p. 10, 11, 59, 193, 269

Actually this is 1841 and 1842.
privileges should be corrected to privileges.

None of these men had any known doubts about the words of Matthew, and when they refer to 28:19 they give the traditional pure Bible text. How they actually baptized would take more study.

From the same publication:

"When they said that they had“ not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost,” he immediately inquired, “ Unto (or into) what then were ye baptized?” referring, as it would seem, to the formula given by our Lord, “ baptizing them in (or into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost or, at least, to the promise of the Spirit, as a part of the faith into which both the disciples of John and of Jesus were baptized, and of which baptism in water was from the first spoken of as the symbol.. p. 56 - 1842
https://books.google.com/books?id=xn...AJ&pg=RA1-PA56

The same sense will be given, however, if eis be rendered into; it would still refer to the profession which baptism ratified ; as in Matt, xxviii. 9, Baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Iloly Ghost,” evidently means into professed faith, and obedience to that name. p. 67 - 1842
https://books.google.com/books?id=xn...AJ&pg=RA1-PA67

On p. 277 we see that it is drawn from Matthew 28:19 as well as Acts.

Is the ordinance of less importance now, than when our Lord commanded his disciples to go forth into all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them,—baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Did not the apostles strictly attend to the sacred injunction? Can we think that Peter did not most strenuously urge the necessity of water baptism, as practised by John, when the "three thousand were pricked to the heart,” referring them to the words above quoted, that the promise was to them and to their children, &c.—Matthew xxviii. 19, 20?
https://books.google.com/books?id=xnwBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA277

Robert William Overbury, (1812-1868) was involved with these Primitive Baptists and this publication and has a book on:

The Jesuits (1948)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SjAEAAAAQAAJ

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

“Many believed their doctrine, professed allegiance to Jesus Christ, by being baptized in his name…Own dear reader, the justice of your condemnation; forsake your sins; confess your guild in having so long despised and disesteemed the only saviour; be immersed in his name for the remission of your sins through his blood:…So the claims of a person to the honor and priveleges of a Christian are defective, till he has put on Christ by being baptized in his name…They had heard the gospel, believed in Jesus, been baptized in his name, and were united in holy fellowship…Perhaps thou hast obtained mercy, yet hast not made that public profession of it which Christ requires, by being baptized in his name.” The Primitive Church Magazine (1841) p. 10, 11, 59, 193, 269

FZ, now your argument is that your opposition doesn’t believe in Jesus name baptism? Seriously? FZ, where is the above writer stating that Matthew 28:19 as it is worded in our Bibles is an insertion? I can’t see that, maybe you would be gracious enough to point it out? For the record, the title of this thread is concerning the Matthew 28:19 verse as it appears in our Bibles to be a Greek fabrication. Yet NOW you are changing the argument to claim all who oppose you don’t believe in Jesus name baptism? Read this real close, I have NEVER, EVER, baptized anyone or anything in titles father, son, or Holy Ghost. So, maybe you can stay on task with your original premise. Matthew 28:19 never posed a problem for me to PROVE Jesus name baptism is correct, or that Jesus is ONE GOD. Unless you don’t believe Jesus was God fully?

So, now that I stated my position on Jesus name baptism, and One God. Maybe you can prove how Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew. How Matthew 28:19 was the ONLY VERSE which was tampered.

Thank you in advance for your time.

[FlamingZword]

In 1844 AD August Wilhelm Neander, The Father of History Church (1789-1850) in History of the planting and training of the Christian Church by the Apostles writes: “In baptism, entrance into communion with Christ appears to have been the essential point; thus persons were united to the spiritual body of Christ and received into the communion of the redeemed, the church of Christ. Hence Baptism according to its characteristic marks, was designated a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah was the original article of faith in the Apostolic church, and this (Baptism in the name of Jesus) was probably the most ancient formula of baptism, which was still made use of even in the third Century.”

If it was the most ancient formula, it means it preceded the trinitarian baptismal formula.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In 1844 AD August Wilhelm Neander, The Father of History Church (1789-1850) in History of the planting and training of the Christian Church by the Apostles writes: “In baptism, entrance into communion with Christ appears to have been the essential point; thus persons were united to the spiritual body of Christ and received into the communion of the redeemed, the church of Christ. Hence Baptism according to its characteristic marks, was designated a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah was the original article of faith in the Apostolic church, and this (Baptism in the name of Jesus) was probably the most ancient formula of baptism, which was still made use of even in the third Century.”

If it was the most ancient formula, it means it preceded the trinitarian baptismal formula.

FZ, so you actually ran out of things to say about spurious verses? So, now you are going to tell us things we already know? What happened about you proving the original thought of the thread? Not going to happen? Too difficult? Translated your own Bible with the traditional Matthew wording missing for nothing? So now you will end your part (in a thread you started) by telling us that Jesus name baptism is how Apostolic’s baptized. Very good, we all agree. Where we don’t agree is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, that the original wording of Matthew 28:19 is a fabrication of Greek scribes, and that we have to take Sharpie markers to our Bibles to remove verses we cannot explain. FZ, it looks like the problem is that you don’t believe JESUS is the NAME of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That my friend is the bigger problem here.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In 1844 AD August Wilhelm Neander, The Father of History Church (1789-1850) in History of the planting and training of the Christian Church by the Apostles writes: “In baptism, entrance into communion with Christ appears to have been the essential point; thus persons were united to the spiritual body of Christ and received into the communion of the redeemed, the church of Christ. Hence Baptism according to its characteristic marks, was designated a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah was the original article of faith in the Apostolic church, and this (Baptism in the name of Jesus) was probably the most ancient formula of baptism, which was still made use of even in the third Century.”

If it was the most ancient formula, it means it preceded the trinitarian baptismal formula.

Not according to August Neander, the very man you are sort of quoting.

History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church: By the Apostles, Volume 1 (1842)
August Neander
https://books.google.com/books?id=QV...=PA24&lpg=PA25

Hence baptism at this period, in its peculiar Christian meaning, referred to this one article of faith, which constituted the essence of Christianity, as baptism into Jesus, into the name of Jesus; it was the holy rite which sealed the connection with Jesus as the Messiah. From this signification of baptism, we cannot indeed, conclude with certainty, that there was only one form of baptism. Still, it is probable, that in the original apostolic formula, no reference was made except to this one article. This shorter baptismal formula contains in itself every thing which is further developed in the words used by Christ at the institution of baptism, but which he did not intend to establish as an exact formula; the reference to God, who has revealed and shewn himself in and by the Son, as a Father; and to the Spirit of the Father, whom Christ imparts to believers as the new spirit one article of faith included, therefore, the whole of Christian doctrine.

August Neander had a far better understanding of the Bible harmony of Matthew and Acts than does FZ.

[diakonos]

This is a sad thread.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

This is a sad thread.

What part?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by diakonos

This is a sad thread.

I've considered it an informative thread.