Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Jesus words concerning baptism in Matt 28:19 were....oh wait....you rewrote that. Never mind.

It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources.

It's not a restoration. You have no early texts showing such a usage.

Which Eusebius quotes Matt 28:19 as you've changed it?

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by seekerman

It's not a restoration. You have no early texts showing such a usage.

Which Eusebius quotes Matt 28:19 as you've changed it?

This is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!
For the sake of clarifying the above point, one can look to the listing of the Papyri's as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, pages 96-103. This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the "earliest manuscripts" and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.
The next list given by the Aland's is of the Uncials which begins in the fourth century with a 01 codex Sinaiticus.
Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13. Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they were providing only those manuscripts "dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)." Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is not among the verses found here!
Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other "types" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider.
Within the past hundred years there have been those who brought evidence against the Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc. Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command. In his writings after the council of Nicea, the traditional form including the Trinity baptism formula is found 5 times, although most of these are not above question.
I might add, that whether or not Eusebius's rendering indicates that the ending of Matthew was changed at some point or not, it certainly seems, at the least, to give us his interpretation of the passage! In The Proof of the Gospel and The Theophania Eusebius goes on to quote Philippians 2:9-11! Clearly indicating that he felt that the Name of Jesus was "the Name" referenced by this text!

You have no early texts showing such a usage.

That is a very dogmatic assertion that is easily proven false by a study of textual criticism and the writings of the Post-Apostolic Fathers. The data on this are extensive.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

This is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!
For the sake of clarifying the above point, one can look to the listing of the Papyri's as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, pages 96-103. This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the "earliest manuscripts" and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.
The next list given by the Aland's is of the Uncials which begins in the fourth century with a 01 codex Sinaiticus.
Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13. Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they were providing only those manuscripts "dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)." Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is not among the verses found here!
Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other "types" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider.
Within the past hundred years there have been those who brought evidence against the Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc. Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command. In his writings after the council of Nicea, the traditional form including the Trinity baptism formula is found 5 times, although most of these are not above question.
I might add, that whether or not Eusebius's rendering indicates that the ending of Matthew was changed at some point or not, it certainly seems, at the least, to give us his interpretation of the passage! In The Proof of the Gospel and The Theophania Eusebius goes on to quote Philippians 2:9-11! Clearly indicating that he felt that the Name of Jesus was "the Name" referenced by this text!

You have no early texts showing such a usage.

That is a very dogmatic assertion that is easily proven false by a study of textual criticism and the writings of the Post-Apostolic Fathers. The data on this are extensive.

Usually, when quoting from another source, you put quotes around it and reference the sourse else one might conclude that the person posting it has researched the issue themselves. Like this.....

http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

Not to do this would suggest the appearance of plagiarism, wouldn't it?

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by seekerman

The simple fact of the Church of Jesus Christ is that it's never been defeated, invisible, cowering or absent for 2000 years. The simple fact is that the Church is built upon Jesus Christ and didn't suddenly appear in 1913 after almost 2000 years of being gone, invisible, dead and buried as one would have to believe if one views oneness pentecostalism (circa 1913) as the sole representative of the Church of Jesus Christ today.

The simple truth, like it or not, accept it or not, is that the Church of Jesus Christ is, and has been for 2000 years, much much larger than the latter day (circa 1913) oneness pentecostal sect.

The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ never made it out of the First Century intact. Much of the content of the Epistles were written in response to the false teaching that had already crept into the Church.

The Book of I John was written to combat the proto-gnosticism that was prevalent in the Church. The subsequent centuries were very much dominated by heresy and the visible, vibrant, powerful Church you continually speak of is absent from the pages of history.

There has of course always existed those true believers that never wavered in faith and practice. But the fact is the true people of God are Pentecostal in experience and Apostolic in doctrine. This is what Jesus taught and led His disciples to be. The true worshippers worship him in spirit and in truth. The Foundation of Truth (Eph2:20) is the Oneness of God and the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ. (Isaiah 43:10, John 8:24). There has always existed a remnant of the true people of God. But "remnant" hardly meets your description of your historical Church. Where is the documentation, the proof of this mysterious "powerful" Church? It simply isn't there.

Oh, make no mistake, there have been Oneness believers throughout Church History. But they were generally treated as heretics by the visible institutional Church and thousands were killed for their denial of the trinity. The "anathema clause" of the Athanasian Creed was enforced often and with vigor.

"The Reformation produced many who opposed the doctrine of the trinity in favor of Oneness beliefs. One prominent antitrinitarian at the time of the Reformation was Michael Servetus (1511-53), an eminent physician from Spain. He had only a few followers, although some historians consider him to be a motivating force for the development of Unitarianism.

However, he definitely was not Unitarian, for he acknowledged Jesus as God. The following description of him clearly indicates that he was a Oneness believer: “The denial by Servetus of the tripersonality of the Godhead and the eternality of the Son, along with his anabaptism, made his system abhorrent to Catholics and Protestants alike, in spite of his intense Biblicism, his passionate devotion to the person of Christ, and his Christocentric scheme of the universe.”

Servetus wrote, “There is no other person of God but Christ. . . . The entire Godhead of the Father is in him.”Sound familiar? Servetus went so far as to call the doctrine of the trinity a three-headed monster. He believed it necessarily led to polytheism and was a delusion from the devil. He also believed that because the church accepted trinitarianism, God allowed it to come under the rule of the papacy and so to lose Christ. He could not understand why the Protestants would come out of Catholicism but still insist upon retaining the nonbiblical and man-made doctrine of the trinity.

Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 for his beliefs, with the approval of John Calvin (although Calvin would have rather had him beheaded)." (David Bernard, The Oneness of God, Ch 10).

The whole of Church History since the time of the Reformation has been the gradual rediscovery and restoration of lost truth. 1913 was simply one more link in the chain of the promised restoration of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Usually, when quoting from another source, you put quotes around it and reference the sourse else one might conclude that the person posting it has researched the issue themselves. Like this.....

http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

Not to do this would suggest the appearance of plagiarism, wouldn't it?

Correction accepted. As evidenced by my previous postings, I am generally very careful to document my sources so that the reader can verify the facts. In my haste I was negligent to do so this time. I apologize for the lapse and thank you for calling it to my attention and providing the link for the readers.

This in no way detracts from the evidence presented to support the claim made by Originally Posted by FlamingZword
"It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources."

You asked, "Which Eusebius."

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ never made it out of the First Century intact. Much of the content of the Epistles were written in response to the false teaching that had already crept into the Church.

The Book of I John was written to combat the proto-gnosticism that was prevalent in the Church. The subsequent centuries were very much dominated by heresy and the visible, vibrant, powerful Church you continually speak of is absent from the pages of history.

There has of course always existed those true believers that never wavered in faith and practice. But the fact is the true people of God are Pentecostal in experience and Apostolic in doctrine. This is what Jesus taught and led His disciples to be. The true worshippers worship him in spirit and in truth. The Foundation of Truth (Eph2:20) is the Oneness of God and the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ. (Isaiah 43:10, John 8:24). There has always existed a remnant of the true people of God. But "remnant" hardly meets your description of your historical Church. Where is the documentation, the proof of this mysterious "powerful" Church? It simply isn't there.

Oh, make no mistake, there have been Oneness believers throughout Church History. But they were generally treated as heretics by the visible institutional Church and thousands were killed for their denial of the trinity. The "anathema clause" of the Athanasian Creed was enforced often and with vigor.

"The Reformation produced many who opposed the doctrine of the trinity in favor of Oneness beliefs. One prominent antitrinitarian at the time of the Reformation was Michael Servetus (1511-53), an eminent physician from Spain. He had only a few followers, although some historians consider him to be a motivating force for the development of Unitarianism.

However, he definitely was not Unitarian, for he acknowledged Jesus as God. The following description of him clearly indicates that he was a Oneness believer: “The denial by Servetus of the tripersonality of the Godhead and the eternality of the Son, along with his anabaptism, made his system abhorrent to Catholics and Protestants alike, in spite of his intense Biblicism, his passionate devotion to the person of Christ, and his Christocentric scheme of the universe.”

Servetus wrote, “There is no other person of God but Christ. . . . The entire Godhead of the Father is in him.”Sound familiar? Servetus went so far as to call the doctrine of the trinity a three-headed monster. He believed it necessarily led to polytheism and was a delusion from the devil. He also believed that because the church accepted trinitarianism, God allowed it to come under the rule of the papacy and so to lose Christ. He could not understand why the Protestants would come out of Catholicism but still insist upon retaining the nonbiblical and man-made doctrine of the trinity.

Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 for his beliefs, with the approval of John Calvin (although Calvin would have rather had him beheaded)." (David Bernard, The Oneness of God, Ch 10).

The whole of Church History since the time of the Reformation has been the gradual rediscovery and restoration of lost truth. 1913 was simply one more link in the chain of the promised restoration of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

All that and you can't find the visible, viable and powerful Church of Jesus Christ in the decades immediately preceeding 1913. Strange. Very strange. Maybe just start with Church history in the 1800s? That's a very recent century, full of history.

Oh...and are you SURE you wish to claim Servetus as a oneness pentecostal?

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently this has not been seen or there is no evidence for a first century baptism in the titles.

Sorry, I hadn't been back to look atthe thiread for a while.

The book this info is in is called Early CHristain Writings. It is available on Amazon. I have not read it, but the information is in the book according to my friend. References to baptism in the titles clearly being done in the first century so during the time of the Apostolic Fathers.

Again, I am a believer in Jesus name baptism being the only correct means of baptism, but we can't ignore parts of history we don't like just because they cause a little hiccup in our doctrinal stance.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Oh...and are you SURE you wish to claim Servetus as a oneness pentecostal?

Servetus taught Oneness better than many modern oneness theologians. Have you read his writings? Or just what the Arians and socinians claim?

Here, check this out - http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...light=servetus