The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Evang.Benincasa]

Excellent

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Excellent

This issue was settled before I was even born, so unless the other side can produce heretofore never before seen overwhelming astounding evidence, the debate is in the same category as debating whether or not Atlas gets tired holding up the earth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This issue was settled before I was even born, so unless the other side can produce heretofore never before seen overwhelming astounding evidence, the debate is in the same category as debating whether or not Atlas gets tired holding up the earth.

That's funny.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Adolf Harnack didn't believe the Gospel of John was credible. In fact he believed the Gospel according to John was a bogus attempt to record the events of Jesus' life.

Understood. He wrote about Matthew 28:19 a few times, he was not very consistent in what he said, and in one spot he essentially rejected the traditional text as not authentic first century because he saw it as Trinitarian! Afaik, Harnack did not say what text would be original, in his construction.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) First Apology
Irenaeus – (2nd century) Against Heresies
Diatessoran (Tatian, c.175 AD)
Didache (c. 2nd century)
Apostolic Teachings (2nd Century) (x references)
The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles
Tertullian – (c. 200 AD) On Baptism.– Chapter XIII.
Against Praxeas
Prescription against Heretics
Hippolytus (c.200 AD) -Against the Heresy of One Noetus

These gentlemen were referencing the traditional Matthew 28:19 text.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

There are certain quotes from way before Eusebius that really help with understanding the baptism issues. Including the Treatise on Rebaptism.

Origen used the traditional formula a number of times, again way before Eusebius. In this one we see a discussion that looks very similar to what is discussed today, and Origen could teach our posters on the thread about remitting sin. Just as John's baptism was a fulfillment of the old covenant, the baptism of Jesus was similar, to fulfill all righteousness. And the same type of sense passed forth to those baptized by the disciples of Jesus in the gospels:

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5
https://books.google.com/books?id=vn6qEg2MwX0C&pg=PA356

(6) Christ himself, however, is related to have been baptized by John not with the baptism which is in Christ but with the one which is in the law. For this is what he himself says to John, “Let it be so; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” In that passage he is making known that John’s baptism was a fulfillment of the old, not a beginning of the new. After all, it is related in the Acts of the Apostles why certain disciples who had been baptized with John’s baptism were rebaptized in the name of Jesus by a determination made by the apostles. “Therefore we who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death.”

(7) You may perhaps also be asking this: Since the Lord himself told the disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, why does the Apostle employ here the name of Christ alone in baptism? For he says, “We have been baptized into Christ,” although surely it should not be deemed a legitimate baptism unless it is in the name of the Trinity. But look at Paul’s good sense since, indeed, in the present passage he was not interested in discussing the subject of baptism as much as the death of Christ, in whose likeness he argues that we should die to sin and be buried with Christ. Obviously it was not appropriate to name either the Father or the Holy Spirit in a passage in which he was speaking about death. For “the Word became flesh"; and where there is flesh, it is fitting to treat the subject of death. But it was not fitting for him to say, “We who have been baptized in the name of the Father or in the name of the Holy Spirit, have been baptized into his death.” Consequently, in this passage one should keep in mind the Apostle’s custom in other places, that when he cites the Scriptures, he does not always cite the complete wording of the text as it is found in the original passage, but he takes only as much as is called for by his current argument. Thus in the expression we have mentioned here, because he desired to teach about the death of Christ, it is sufficient for him to say, “We who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death.”

Allowing that Origen is not always doctrinally sound, and that the "Trinity" baptism looks to be occurring by the time he writes, you can see very clearly that he is contrasting the Matthew 28:19 command (repeated but not obeyed) with the short expression in Romans.

The strongly confirming ECW references, on top of the absolutely overwhelming manuscript support, is why I say that we are dealing with a dark spiritual principality coming from the scripture manglers and twisters who attack the beautiful and excellent Bible verses. Smoke and mirrors.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Who did the Spanish of your book?

I did the spanish and all the spanish translations.

I have experience doing professional translations for the military and civilian sectors.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ⸀βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Updated books are fine. But the text of Mt. 28:19 remains the same. There are no Greek manuscripts of Mt. 28:19 that have a variant reading.

that is irrelevant.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Only California Pastors get a free copy?

What's up with that?

I can only afford to give a few free bibles, they cost money.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

There are certain quotes from way before Eusebius that really help with understanding the baptism issues. Including the Treatise on Rebaptism.

Origen used the traditional formula a number of times, again way before Eusebius. In this one we see a discussion that looks very similar to what is discussed today, and Origen could teach our posters on the thread about remitting sin. Just as John's baptism was a fulfillment of the old covenant, the baptism of Jesus was similar, to fulfill all righteousness. And the same type of sense passed forth to those baptized by the disciples of Jesus in the gospels:
Allowing that Origen is not always doctrinally sound, and that the "Trinity" baptism looks to be occurring by the time he writes, you can see very clearly that he is contrasting the Matthew 28:19 command (repeated but not obeyed) with the short expression in Romans.

The strongly confirming ECW references, on top of the absolutely overwhelming manuscript support, is why I say that we are dealing with a dark spiritual principality coming from the scripture manglers and twisters who attack the beautiful and excellent Bible verses. Smoke and mirrors.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Steven

The Second council of Constantinople, 553 AD issued an anathema against Origen for not believing in the Trinity.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Very creative.
What do you do with Irenaeus mentioning Matthew, referencing verses from Matthew including Matthew 28:19 ... all before your date for the Greek Matthew?

And what do you do with these references from before or close to your Greek Matthew?
(this can use a fuller check and rehash)

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) First Apology
Irenaeus – (2nd century) Against Heresies
Diatessoran (Tatian, c.175 AD)
Didache (c. 2nd century)
Apostolic Teachings (2nd Century) (x references)
The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles
Tertullian – (c. 200 AD) On Baptism.– Chapter XIII.
Against Praxeas
Prescription against Heretics
Hippolytus (c.200 AD) -Against the Heresy of One Noetus

These gentlemen were referencing the traditional Matthew 28:19 text.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

Here is Irenaeus writing in the 2nd century (about 140 years before Eusebius, who also has a number of quotes with the full expression.):

And I would say that this whole argument is done with smoke and mirrors. And the apostolic "scholars" who follow this argument should be recognized as Bible-correcting charlatans, and considered totally unreliable in terms of recognizing the pure word of God. Duped or ignorant or twisters of convenience, in a seminary stupor, if you do not like the word charlatans.

btw, there is nothing special about Eusebius using the short-hand most of the time, similar to apostolics asking "are you baptized in his name"?

Steven

There is evidence that the writings of Justin Martyr were altered.

Justin Martyr First Apology, Early Christian Fathers (1953) translated by Dr. Cyril C Richardson.
Ch. 42, “our Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven, reigned; and by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him”
Ch. 61, “The illuminand is also washed [baptized] in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate”