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 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 Churches have been deceived for many generations.
Strait and narrow/ precise is the WAY that still works.
Acts.22:16
[16] Arise and be baptized,
and wash away your sins,
calling on the name of
the LORD = (Jesus the incarnated God of Israel)
Acts.2
[38] Then Peter
said to the Israelites:
Repent,
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 of sins,
and you shall receive (from Jesus),
the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Support for CORRECT baptism.
"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,
in the original text of
Matthew 28:19:
"With one word and voice He said to His disciples:
"Go, and make disciples of all nations >> in My Name,
teaching them to observe 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 were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive,
but its trustworthiness is impugned,
on grounds of textual criticism,
literary criticism and historical criticism."
*
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 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 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 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) not found in Scripture.
" "The chief Trinitarian 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 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 formula
was perhaps a later 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.
*
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however,
cannot have given His disciples 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 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 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
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 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 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 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
if water is
three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine]
on the head.
The one baptizing who is baptizing,
names over the one being baptized,
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,"
later expanded [illegally changed]
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 are, as a formula.
Not all baptisms fitted this rule."
Dr Hall further, states:
"More common
and perhaps more ancient 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."
*
On every point the evidence of Acts
is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition
embodied in
Matthew 28:19,
is a late (non-Scriptural Creed)
and unhistorical.
*
It is a historical fact,
that the Catholic Church at one time,
baptized its converts in the name of Jesus
but later changed to Trinity baptism.
*
A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker
former Professor of Ecclesiastical History,
at Yale University.
On page 95,
we see the historical facts again declared.
"With the early disciples,
generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ."
There is no mention of baptism,
in the name of the Trinity, in the New Testament,
except in the command,
attributed to Christ in
Matthew 28:19.
That text is early, (but not the original) however.
It underlies the Apostles' Creed,
and the practice recorded
(*or interpolated) in the Teaching,
(or the Didache) and by Justin.
The Christian leaders of the third century,
retained the recognition of the earlier form,
and, in Rome at least,
baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid,
if irregular,
certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker,
reviles the true origin and purpose of
Matthew 28:19.
This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed
that was the prototype,
for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed.
Matthew 28:19
was >> invented along with
the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed
to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics
that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ!
Marcion,
although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine,
still baptized his converts >> the Biblical way
in the name of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:19 is
the first > non-Biblical
> Roman Catholic Creed!
The > spurious Catholic text of
Matthew 28:19,
was >invented to support the newer triune,
Trinity doctrine.
Therefore,
Matthew 28:19
is >not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ."
Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax!
Acts 2:38,
Luke 24:47, and
1 Corinthians 6:11
give us the ancient original words
and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus!
Is it not also strange that
Matthew 28:19
is >> missing from the old manuscripts
of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
"While the power of the episcopate
and the significance of churches
of Apostolical (Catholic) foundation
was thus greatly enhanced
the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development
of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed,
at least in the West.
Some form of >> instruction, before baptism,
was common,
by the middle of the second century.
At Rome this developed,
apparently, between 150 and 175,
and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism,
into an explication of
the baptismal formula of
Matthew 28:19
the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed."
*
Time Magazine, Dec. 5, 1955:
Record of a True Baptism in Rome 100 A.D.
"The deacon raised his hand,
and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistery door.
Standing waist-deep in the pool
was Marcus Vasca the wood seller.
He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him.
'Credis?' he asked.
Credo' responded Publius.
'I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ
who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.'
Then he felt strong arms supporting him
as he let himself fall backward into the pool,
and heard Marcus' voice in his ear,
'I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus'
as the cold water closed over (buried) him."
*
The child of the Father,
who is coming to the LORD (GOD’s gathering Hand)
must also call on the LORD Jesus, from under the water,
or all you do is get wet.
To call God by his name,
in order to get his attention,
and response
was always the beneficial Israelite custom.
Gentiles must become aware of this fact.
The new born Spirit (after Baptism)
is fed the Apostles Doctrine,
while Christ makes the New Man through the Spirit.
Multiple goodness and happiness follows Baptism.
The opinion of a believer,
who has not baptized calling on Jesus,
from under the water (the burial),
is equivalent to that of any man,
from any other religion,
who also have not performed, the LORD’s Ordinance.
Ride prosperously with Grace from BOTH.
Linear Mode
