Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

In 1851 Professor of Biblical Criticism Edmund Turney (1816-1872) wrote in Baptism in the Import and explicitness of the command, p. 7, 10 “This transaction (baptism) is to be observed in the name of Christ, in profession of faith in him, and of conformity to his death and resurrection; and it is its design as thus explained, which invests it with its distinctive character as a Christian rite. “; “is it conceivable that our Lord should have sent forth his disciples among the various Gentile nations using the Greek language in the Roman empire, with the proclamation that they should "repent," and in his name " be baptized"”

[Scott Pitta]

Nice quote. But it tells us nothing about the textual transmission of the Greek text of Mt. 28:19.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In 1851 Professor of Biblical Criticism Edmund Turney (1816-1872) wrote in Baptism in the Import and explicitness of the command, p. 7, 10 “This transaction (baptism) is to be observed in the name of Christ, in profession of faith in him, and of conformity to his death and resurrection; and it is its design as thus explained, which invests it with its distinctive character as a Christian rite. “; “is it conceivable that our Lord should have sent forth his disciples among the various Gentile nations using the Greek language in the Roman empire, with the proclamation that they should "repent," and in his name " be baptized"”

That quote is a bit confusing, since it seems to be contra the very idea of repentance and baptism being taught by Jesus for the Gentiles after his resurrection. Cornelius, anyone?

As for Edmund (also Edward) Turney, (1816-1871), who published hymns, including baptism hymns, his more well known book on baptism, originally published in 1847, is online.

The scriptural law of baptism, or the design of baptism presented and applied, leading to an examination of its form, its subjects, its authority, and its relative position
Edmund Turney
https://books.google.com/books?id=jzFOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA23

The reason is thus obvious for administering baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An acknowledgement of the doctrine of the Trinity as holding a conspicuous place in the revelation of the gospel, is implied in a simple profession of faith in Christ.; while in a confession of indebtedness to divine interposition for the remission of sin, and the renewal of the heart, the office and work and claims of each of the persons in the Trinity, are brought definitely and prominently to view. The subjects of baptism profess their allegiance to the Father as their Creator and Sovereign, their reception of the Son as their Lord and Redeemer, and their submission to the Holy Spirit as their Guide and Helper and Sanctifier.

(related material on p. 165 and p. 192)

While Turney may have a more sensible conception of baptism than many of today's Baptists, he is not strong on our questions here.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I've considered it an informative thread.

FZ, stopped defending his original point that the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious. Now he just wants to post that we need to baptize in Jesus name. Wonderful. Dearest readers, what you are witnessing here is FZ, ran out of a strong argument.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, stopped defending his original point that the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious. Now he just wants to post that we need to baptize in Jesus name. Wonderful. Dearest readers, what you are witnessing here is FZ, ran out of a strong argument.

My perspective, just enjoy the learning experience about various writers and beliefs.

The claims of FZ are clearly irrelevant, but that does not mean we shouldn't learn more about the baptism and interpretation history.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

My perspective, just enjoy the learning experience about various writers and beliefs.

The claims of FZ are clearly irrelevant, but that does not mean we shouldn't learn more about the baptism and interpretation history.

Yes, and it looks as FZ totally understands the weakness of his claims. But he has supplied some good resources of those who believed Biblical baptism was to be performed in Jesus name. That I applaud. Yet, there is no sound proof for the traditional rendering of Matthew 28:19 to be a scribal error or insertion. Also no solid proof for a Hebrew/Aramaic original New Testament.

[Scott Pitta]

Steve is right. The quotes are interesting.

FZ does do his homework.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Steve is right. The quotes are interesting.
FZ does do his homework.

Not really. He never says if it is his reference, or one he got elsewhere. His information is selectively spotty, which is why on virtually every reference he is hiding major aspects. However, whatever the actual origin, it does encourage us to research our Christian heritage!

Keep in mind that this idea of recrafting the Bible has infected oneness circles.

There are actually 3 distinct major problems that come to mind.

1) the general confusions of the Westcott-Hort recension and modern versions
2) the yahweh infestation (which largely took over at Homestead Heritage, and has affected many to various degrees.)
3) the Matthew 28:19 specialty rewrite attempt

For a little while I was frustrated with dealing with FZ, when I realized that we can turn it for good, I just enjoyed the ride.

Romans 8:28 (AV)
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,
to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Many folks on this forum are working with (1) to various degrees. (2) is incredibly important, and I implore you to really accept Jehovah and reject all the yahweh stuff, at least give it very sincere study. (3) is limited, but it is the same type of Bible correction problem.

[FlamingZword]

In 1855 professor of theology Baron Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his History of the Christian Church writes that up till 100 AD “Baptism as an initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus”. He states that from 100-312 AD the Roman Church, recognized the validity of all baptisms. And mentioned that the Marcionists (who baptized in the name of Jesus) existed until the 6th century.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In 1855 professor of theology Baron Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his History of the Christian Church writes that up till 100 AD “Baptism as an initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus”. He states that from 100-312 AD the Roman Church, recognized the validity of all baptisms. And mentioned that the Marcionists (who baptized in the name of Jesus) existed until the 6th century.

Allowing that the first edition was 1834 in German and there were various translators and editions.

The footnote Hase gives for the name of Jesus quote is the scriptures:
a) Acts 2, 38. 8, 16. 10, 48; Rom. 6,3.

A History of the Christian Church (1855)
Charles Hase - Jena - 7th edition
translated by Charles E. Blumenthal, Conway P. Wing
https://books.google.com/books?id=PIUxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA41
https://archive.org/details/historyo...00hase/page/40

Karl August von Hase - (1800-1890)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hase

Marcion section - p. 81-83
https://books.google.com/books?id=PIUxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA81

Quote about the validity of baptisms p. 70
https://books.google.com/books?id=PIUxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA70
Note the qualification.

=====================

The comment about Marcion baptiing in the name of Jesus is from FZ, not Hase.
The sixth century comment might be about another group, the Ophites, on p. 80.

There was some Marcion discussion earlier in the thread.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...on#post1556588

Here is a bit on Marcion and baptism, in an excellent book:

Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (2009)
Everett Ferguson (b. 1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA299

Ferguson makes an interesting comment on one Cyprian reference on the name of Jesus in baptism.

===============================

Primary sources on all this include:

Cyprian - Epistle 73
To Pompey, Against the Epistle of Stephen About the Baptism of Heretics.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

Along with the Treatise on Rebaptism and the Tertullian sources, his Treatise on Baptism and his writing Against Marcion.

Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism
https://books.google.com/books?id=6-1YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA665
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vii.iv.i.html

Tertullian
Of Baptism
https://books.google.com/books?id=rYBaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA255

Tertullian Against Marcion
https://books.google.com/books?id=DB4ys_9FGx0C

===============================

Baptism Among the Early Christians (2004)
Jon Isaak
http://www.directionjournal.org/33/1...hristians.html

Although there are references to baptism scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, “only one extant treatise from that period [ca. 200] is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian” (Pelikan, 163). However, the most succinct statement by Tertullian on baptism actually came, not in his treatise, but in his polemic against Marcion. According to Tertullian, baptism brought four gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Against Marcion 1.28.2 cited in Pelikan, 163). 16

Helpful, but seems like he should have added the third century Treatise on Rebaptism.

===============================

Steven