Differences in Baptism, in the Holy Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronin67
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ronin67

Guest
Why the discrepancy about baptism in the Holy Bible. Jesus our Lord and Savior says in Matthew 19:19; “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. Yet in Acts 2:38; and Peter said to them “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. This can be a hard one to explain to someone who is trying to understand the scripture. To be quite honest this confuses me to. Wasn’t Peter present when Christ Jesus said this before he ascended into Heaven? Can someone please explain this to me?

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed
 
What discrepancy are you referring to? Do you mean the discrepancy in the names to be baptized in?
 
Why the discrepancy about baptism in the Holy Bible.
In Acts 2:38, Peter was not attempting to convey the proper form of Baptism. He was speaking to a Jewish audience, and was explaining that they needed to undergo Christian Baptism (ie, in the name of Jesus Christ). There were other baptisms, such as the baptism of John, which were not valid Christian Baptisms (Acts 19:2-4).

Being Baptized in the “name of Jesus” does not preclude being also baptized in the name of the “Father” and the “Holy Spirit,” but does clearly convey that the baptism is specifically Christian in nature, which is what Paul was emphasizing in Acts 2:38.

It is the same as my use of the phrase “Christian Baptism” in this reply. You might not have noticed that I did not say “Trinitarian Baptism,” which is technically more accurate, but I think we all realize they are the same.
 
Why the discrepancy about baptism in the Holy Bible. Jesus our Lord and Savior says in Matthew 19:19; “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. Yet in Acts 2:38; and Peter said to them “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. This can be a hard one to explain to someone who is trying to understand the scripture. To be quite honest this confuses me to. Wasn’t Peter present when Christ Jesus said this before he ascended into Heaven? Can someone please explain this to me?

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed
This is why Peter says: “Understand this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation” 2 Peter 1:20, and in 3:15-16 he says that some things are hard to grasp and interpret.

You just can’t pick up the Bible and interpret it yourself.
 
This is why Peter says: “Understand this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation” 2 Peter 1:20, and in 3:15-16 he says that some things are hard to grasp and interpret.

You just can’t pick up the Bible and interpret it yourself.
RESPONSE:

On the contrary, one can recognize when there are contradictions in scripture. Acts of the Apostles describes baptism four times always in the name of Jesus alone. Paul mentions another.

The 4th century Church historian Eusebius had earlier editions of Matthew’s gospel (ours dates from 325 AD). He describes this passgage in Matthew without any referece to the Trinity.

Incidentally, St. Peter almost assuredly didn’t write Peter’s epistles.
 
It’s necessary to recognize that the earliest complete (extant) Gospel of Matthew dates from about 325, the time of the Council of Nicea. It appears that the verse describing the Trinity baptismal formula was added at that time.

Eusebius, the 4th century Church historian, had an old library available to him. His earlier references to Matt 28:19 do not contain this formula and read differently than the extant copy we have today.

The Text of the New Testament, Randall Duane Hughes

godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

“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.”

A second reference to the Trinity is found in 1 John 5:7 . But this too appears to be an interpolation.

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Wikipedia notes that "It does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers. The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages, “[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist”

Ant the other hand, we do have 4 references to baptism in the name of Jesus alone in Acts of the Apostles, and another in Paul’s Epistle.
 
On the contrary, one can recognize when there are contradictions in scripture.
There is no contradiction here.

In John 6, Jesus tells us that, unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood that we cannot be saved. But John 6 does not mention Baptism, which is also necessary. Did Jesus contradict himself by leaving Baptism out of his Eucharistic discourse? (or by omitting Eucharist from his discussion with Nicodemus?)
 
RESPONSE:

On the contrary, one can recognize when there are contradictions in scripture. Acts of the Apostles describes baptism four times always in the name of Jesus alone. Paul mentions another.

The 4th century Church historian Eusebius had earlier editions of Matthew’s gospel (ours dates from 325 AD). He describes this passgage in Matthew without any referece to the Trinity.

Incidentally, St. Peter almost assuredly didn’t write Peter’s epistles.
RESPONSE:

This verse WITH reference to the trinity IS mentioned by the Council of Carthage, Tertullian Against Praxeas around AD 200, Irenaus also mentions the verse, The Didache quotes it, Justin Martyr seems to refer to it when mentioning baptism
 
In regards to the baptismal formula there are two ways i know of of seeing this.

The first was proposed by a Church Father (who i cannot remember) and by St Thomas Aquinas, and it was the Apostles were given a dispensation to baptize “in the Name of Christ” as the baptismal formula.

The other is that “in the Name of Christ” simply refers to the authority of the baptism, as Name can refer to authority, Christ is the minister of Baptism, I was told in those days Jews were baptized in the name of their Rabbi, perhaps this was what Acts refers to.

I think the second is more likely, here is a site that explains somewhat and includes early references to MAtthew 28’s trinitarian formula catholicapologetics.net/apolo_65.htm
 
It’s necessary to recognize that the earliest complete (extant) Gospel of Matthew dates from about 325, the time of the Council of Nicea. It appears that the verse describing the Trinity baptismal formula was added at that time.

Eusebius, the 4th century Church historian, had an old library available to him. His earlier references to Matt 28:19 do not contain this formula and read differently than the extant copy we have today.

The Text of the New Testament, Randall Duane Hughes

godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

“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.”

A second reference to the Trinity is found in 1 John 5:7 . But this too appears to be an interpolation.

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Wikipedia notes that "It does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers. The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages, “[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist”

Ant the other hand, we do have 4 references to baptism in the name of Jesus alone in Acts of the Apostles, and another in Paul’s Epistle.
The key here is “Within the past hundred years…” This website and person who runs it does not look like any Catholic biblical Scholar I know.
 
In regards to the baptismal formula there are two ways i know of of seeing this.

The first was proposed by a Church Father (who i cannot remember) and by St Thomas Aquinas, and it was the Apostles were given a dispensation to baptize “in the Name of Christ” as the baptismal formula.

The other is that “in the Name of Christ” simply refers to the authority of the baptism, as Name can refer to authority, Christ is the minister of Baptism, I was told in those days Jews were baptized in the name of their Rabbi, perhaps this was what Acts refers to.

I think the second is more likely, here is a site that explains somewhat and includes early references to MAtthew 28’s trinitarian formula catholicapologetics.net/apolo_65.htm
In the name of Christ identifies the Baptism instituted by Christ, as opposed to that of St. John the Baptism.
 
In regards to the baptismal formula there are two ways i know of of seeing this.

The first was proposed by a Church Father (who i cannot remember) and by St Thomas Aquinas, and it was the Apostles were given a dispensation to baptize “in the Name of Christ” as the baptismal formula.

The other is that “in the Name of Christ” simply refers to the authority of the baptism, as Name can refer to authority, Christ is the minister of Baptism, I was told in those days Jews were baptized in the name of their Rabbi, perhaps this was what Acts refers to.

I think the second is more likely, here is a site that explains somewhat and includes early references to MAtthew 28’s trinitarian formula catholicapologetics.net/apolo_65.htm
Let me get this straight. From the link, the Catholic church took it upon themselves to change what was said about baptism in Matthew to address the Father, Son and Holy spirit? So what did Christ Jesus really command (unaltered version by man please)? I just don’t see Christ raising himself over the Father (it isn’t supported by his actions in the gospels/unless they changed that also). Guys, I have to say your (name removed by moderator)ut on what the Catholic Church did is not reassuring or was this from the original books and the Catholic Church made them look more favorable? Truth is what I seek. I believe that Christ Jesus was the son of God (God the Son/still one God), but what is the way baptism was presented by Christ Jesus per the unaltered version of the Holy Bible? Help me out here people. Because if the Holy Bibles I have are incorrect, I will give them away and look for the one that was per the original texts, unaltered.

Take Care and I hope for God’s Clarity.

Ed
 
Let me get this straight. From the link, the Catholic church took it upon themselves to change what was said about baptism in Matthew to address the Father, Son and Holy spirit? So what did Christ Jesus really command (unaltered version by man please)? I just don’t see Christ raising himself over the Father (it isn’t supported by his actions in the gospels/unless they changed that also). Guys, I have to say your (name removed by moderator)ut on what the Catholic Church did is not reassuring or was this from the original books and the Catholic Church made them look more favorable? Truth is what I seek. I believe that Christ Jesus was the son of God (God the Son/still one God), but what is the way baptism was presented by Christ Jesus per the unaltered version of the Holy Bible? Help me out here people. Because if the Holy Bibles I have are incorrect, I will give them away and look for the one that was per the original texts, unaltered.

Take Care and I hope for God’s Clarity.

Ed
If your looking for a copy of the “Original Bible” you won’t find one. The best your going to do is listening to the teaching of the Church founded by Christ, through which the original New Testament Scriptures came to us and the “Original Bible” was constructed by.
 
If your looking for a copy of the “Original Bible” you won’t find one. The best your going to do is listening to the teaching of the Church founded by Christ, through which the original New Testament Scriptures came to us and the “Original Bible” was constructed by.
Sir, with all do respect, if the Catholic church changed the original texts to fit a need, then the Catholic Church was wrong. Back to the question. Which is the proper way of baptism per the original documents? Was Jesus’ way in Matthew the right way (if that wasn’t changed by human hands) or is the one talked about by Peter in Acts the right way? Can they both be right? If they are both right, then why can’t baptism be in just the name of Jesus and still be correct? Please be advised, I’m very much leaning towards being a Catholic, but regardless if the Catholic Church is the one true body of Christ as they say, they do not outweigh the authority of Christ himself. Now if I have been misinformed about the divinity of Christ Jesus all these years, please let me know.

Ed
 
Code:
Why the discrepancy about baptism in the Holy Bible.  Jesus our Lord and Savior says in Matthew 19:19; "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".
There are no "discrepancies’ in the holy scriptures, ronin. If you think there are, it is because you are misunderstanding what you are reading.
Code:
Yet in Acts 2:38; and Peter said to them "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".  This can be a hard one to explain to someone who is trying to understand the scripture.  To be quite honest this confuses me to.  Wasn't Peter present when Christ Jesus said this before he ascended into Heaven?  Can someone please explain this to me?
Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed
I am not sure what needs to be “explained”. They are two aspects of the One Baptism. 🤷
 
There are no "discrepancies’ in the holy scriptures, ronin. If you think there are, it is because you are misunderstanding what you are reading.

I am not sure what needs to be “explained”. They are two aspects of the One Baptism. 🤷
Dude, I can read! I’m not misunderstanding anything. One says address all the three (per our Savior Christ Jesus) and Peter says Jesus Christ only. Which is correct? If you say both, then please explain why?

Then why (if both are correct) is baptism in the Catholic Church in the the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? If both are right, then why can’t a priest baptize in the name of Jesus Christ alone as Peter (The Rock, the first Pope) states in Acts?

God please give me clarity.

Ed
 
This is why Peter says: “Understand this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation” 2 Peter 1:20, and in 3:15-16 he says that some things are hard to grasp and interpret.

You just can’t pick up the Bible and interpret it yourself.
Well, obviously you CAN, or there would not be such a plethora of ecclesial communities. 😉
 
RESPONSE:

On the contrary, one can recognize when there are contradictions in scripture. Acts of the Apostles describes baptism four times always in the name of Jesus alone. Paul mentions another.

The 4th century Church historian Eusebius had earlier editions of Matthew’s gospel (ours dates from 325 AD). He describes this passgage in Matthew without any referece to the Trinity.

Incidentally, St. Peter almost assuredly didn’t write Peter’s epistles.
Do we have another person masquerading as “Catholic” here who does not hold the Catholic faith?

There are no “contradictions” in Holy Scritpure. If they appear to you that way, it is because you are not correctly understanding what is written.

The teaching of the Church has been the same. When the doctrine of the Trinity was defined, the Rites were adapted accordingly.
 
Let me get this straight. From the link, the Catholic church took it upon themselves to change what was said about baptism in Matthew to address the Father, Son and Holy spirit? So what did Christ Jesus really command (unaltered version by man please)? I just don’t see Christ raising himself over the Father (it isn’t supported by his actions in the gospels/unless they changed that also). Guys, I have to say your (name removed by moderator)ut on what the Catholic Church did is not reassuring or was this from the original books and the Catholic Church made them look more favorable? Truth is what I seek. I believe that Christ Jesus was the son of God (God the Son/still one God), but what is the way baptism was presented by Christ Jesus per the unaltered version of the Holy Bible? Help me out here people. Because if the Holy Bibles I have are incorrect, I will give them away and look for the one that was per the original texts, unaltered.

Take Care and I hope for God’s Clarity.

Ed
No I am saying the unaltered way of Baptism is that which is found in Matthew 28:19: “In the Name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit”, this is the original text and its found in the ANTENicene Fathers (before Nicea in 325) as such, even ones preceding Eusebius, who did at least once quote the whole text of Matthew.

The point I was getting at is that some theologians in Church History believed that though Jesus told them to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, he gave them special permission to baptize “in the Name of Jesus”. This is ONLY a theory, and I personally do not believe it.

When the bible says “In the Name of Jesus” I think its just a name for the baptism, to distinguish it from a rabbinical mikvah, or John’s baptism or such, and that it is not a formula for baptizing people
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top