Matthew 28:19 A Forgery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigdawg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And the fact that they didn’t understand the Trinity in the first century has what to do with Baptism, again? So, again, you’re saying that Jesus was schizophrenic? I’m confused. Why did He refer to the Father as a completely different Person throughout the New Testament? Why did the Didache (70 AD) use the Trinitarian formula? How do you know that they meant exclusively Jesus’ name, and not the name of the Trinity? You forget, we ARE Baptized in Jesus’ name, as well as the Father and Holy Spirit.
 
The most honest statements are those that qualify the statement about the baptismal formula, since the only non-Biblical document that discusses it from the first century is the Didache, and I don’t know what the earliest copy of it is. Any other statement is speculation.

There is no reason to believe that there were not a large number of formulae, as witnessed in Acts. The Jewish Annotated New Testament suggests that this usage may have been a practice of the Matthean community. The New American Bible also mentions this, but states that rather than reflect the exact wording, it may be descriptive of the result of Christian baptism. The Oxford Annotated Bible notes: “According to Hebrew usage, in the name of means in the possession and protection of.”

The ways we understand what happens in baptism is not what determines what God does, it only shows our own understanding of God’s actions.
 
Manuscript evidence unanomously reads the Trinitarian formula for baptism, I listed the earliest manuscripts and gave their readings. The responses of people speculating that the Catholic Church made that formula in the 2nd century is no proof whatsoever. The OP is asking about Matthew 28:19 being forged, and the earliest manuscripts prove otherwise. I dont care what Enclopedia Britannica says or what some college professor thinks, that means nothing.

As far as Doctrine being developed, that is true. Development of an existing doctrine is a reality and a necessity because it takes centuries to articulate and define the teachings that have been handed down in an ever-growing Church that is responsible for clarification and explaining the faith while defending it against heretics.
 
=bigdawg;742382]I was talking to a friend who is a Pentacostal Oneness believer (they deny the Trinity) and he made the claim that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew that we have today do not have the Trinitarian Baptism Formula in them. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

I am not asking for help defending the Trinity or what other scripture passages say about the Trinity or even what the fathers have to say, I am interested in rebutting this one, solitary, very specific point.

So does anybody know if the earliest manuscripts that we have today in fact do have the Trinitarian Baptism Formula or is text missing? I don’t even know what the earliest manuscripts are called so in your response if you could call out what manuscripts have the formula and which don’t along with estimated dates of composition, I will be most grateful.
Click to expand...
***I thinbk your friend is fishing w’o a hook:)

Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate***

**“19 **Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost“. … The Latin Vulgate “euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti”

Also share this with him:

Matt. 3:13-17

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him. [And Jesus [COLOR=“Red”][God the Son] being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, [God the Holy Spirit] and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.[God the Father] DARN IF THAT ISN’T THE TRINITY:D

God Bless,
Pat
 
No one will answer the question.
Why did the disciples baptize ALL of the people in the New Testament incorrectly (according to the catholic church)??
 
ka4life said:
No one will answer the question.
Why did the disciples baptize ALL of the people in the New Testament incorrectly (according to the catholic church)??
Click to expand...
When did the Catholic Church state that the people in the NT baptized all the people incorrectly? The Church has never said that. I know what you are trying to say but your wording is suggesting that the Church has declared that the Apostles baptized incorrectly. Let’s not make a case that’s misrepresenting the Church’s position and then we can move onto the passages in Acts and the mentioning of baptizing in the name of Jesus.
 
ka4life

I have just looked up that quote of Cardinal Ratzinger’s book called Introduction to Christianity (page 82-83), and I noticed that the way it has been used by the source you copied and pasted from is very deceptive and misrepresenting of what he was saying. Cardinal Ratzinger did not suggest that the passage in Matthew 28:19 was a 2nd century idea, but that the Apostles Creed was put together in the 2nd century and it got its basis from Matthew 28:19. You have manipulated and corrupted the quote by adding (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) and (Matthew 28:19), when in fact the Cardinal now Pope was referring to the Apostles Creed! Developing a Creed is not an invention, its a declaration of a believe that already has existed but has been defined and articulated for edification!

After seeing this snake-like trick with this quote makes your whole credibility or the information you have used totally full of venom!
 
I’m afraid your anger at me is misplaced. I didn’t misrepresent anyone. I copied the quote from another source so you will have to go to that source if you wish. What do you with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
 
ka4life said:
I’m afraid your anger at me is misplaced. I didn’t misrepresent anyone. I copied the quote from another source so you will have to go to that source if you wish. What do you with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Click to expand...
So despite the Scriptural evidence for the Trinity, just because early Christians didn’t understand it means that it is invalid?

And what about the Didache? That was from 70 AD. Is that not early enough evidence for you?

Trinity in Scripture:

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

There’s quite a bit of Scriptural evidence backing up the Trinity. Is it not enough that Christ refers to the Father as a different person? Is it not enough that He says we will receive the Paraclete as our Help? I am truly astounded that you believe you have to go to something that Tradition does not teach us, because you believe you are not as far removed from the original Apostles, even though WHAT WE HAVE is handed to us by the APOSTLES and their SUCCESSORS. You are disregarding Tradition and the concept of the Trinity because you believe your interpretation of Scripture is greater than the Church Fathers’. Please, don’t go down that road. It leads to nothing but division.
 
ka4life said:
I’m afraid your anger at me is misplaced. I didn’t misrepresent anyone. I copied the quote from another source so you will have to go to that source if you wish. What do you with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Click to expand...
Standard rules: you brought it, you find it. 😛 Can we have the quote in context?
 
“In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word {tri’as} (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180 . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, Trinity page 47)

Most scholars date the Didache late first century to early 2nd century.

There is no need to rely on tradition when the word of God speaks for itself.

“You are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and believe me, and understand that I myself am. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none.
I am, I am the Lord: and there is no saviour besides me.” Isaiah 43:10-11

"I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace Isaiah 9:6-7

Here Jesus is referred to as the Son and the Everlasting Father
Just as he is referred to as the Root and the Offspring of David

Speaking of Jesus, "Who is the image of the invisible God, . . Colossians 1:15
Jesus is God in the flesh, not a separate person in the godhead.

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” I Timothy 3:16
The only “person that did all these things is Jesus”

Jesus speaking to the Father "And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it. . . " John 17:16 The only name he ever declared was Jesus. So he declared to the disciples that God’s name is Jesus.

Jesus tells his disciples, “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Philip saith unto him, Lord show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?” John 14:7-10

Jesus speaking of the Holy Ghost:
“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John 14:17
Jesus spoke as if the disciples already knew the Comforter that would come. Because it would be Jesus himself that came back to them in Spirit.

All of the John chapters 14-17 speak of God’s oneness.

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." Mark 12:29

“For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell:” Colossians 1:19
“For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9
Jesus is not in the godhead, the godhead is in Jesus.

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils believe, and tremble.” James 2:19

“And immediatley I was in the spirit: and behold a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” Revelation 4:2

Hebrews tells us that when Jesus walked the earth that was the “days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications . . .” Hebrews 5:7

Ephesians 1:11 teaches us that God worketh all things after the council of his own will.

When Jesus prayed to the Father, he counciled his own will.

Jesus said," I have power to lay it down (his own life) and I have power to take it again." John 10:18
Did the Father or Jesus raise Jesus from the dead? One God

In the Angel’s announcement to Mary he told her "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. " Luke 1:35
So is the father of Jesus the Holy Ghost or God? One God

Being seated at the right hand of the Father? The right hand is referred to dozens of times in the Bible and always speaks of a position or place of power.

Well I have barely scratched the surface of the scripture concerned God’s oneness. It is not so crazy to believe that there is One God and that One God manifested himself as the Son and as the Holy spirit. I mean He can be in two places at once can’t he? 🙂 How many thrones will you see in Heaven?

I personally prayed to God for clarification of who He is and He confirms His Oneness always. I am going to bow out because I have a large family and am neglecting them as I type this long post. I wish you all the best as you follow Christ.
 
ka4life said:
“In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word {tri’as} (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180 . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, Trinity page 47)

Most scholars date the Didache late first century to early 2nd century.

There is no need to rely on tradition when the word of God speaks for itself.

“You are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and believe me, and understand that I myself am. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none.
I am, I am the Lord: and there is no saviour besides me.” Isaiah 43:10-11

"I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace Isaiah 9:6-7

Here Jesus is referred to as the Son and the Everlasting Father
Just as he is referred to as the Root and the Offspring of David

Speaking of Jesus, "Who is the image of the invisible God, . . Colossians 1:15
Jesus is God in the flesh, not a separate person in the godhead.

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” I Timothy 3:16
The only “person that did all these things is Jesus”

Jesus speaking to the Father "And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it. . . " John 17:16 The only name he ever declared was Jesus. So he declared to the disciples that God’s name is Jesus.

Jesus tells his disciples, “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Philip saith unto him, Lord show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?” John 14:7-10

Jesus speaking of the Holy Ghost:
“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John 14:17
Jesus spoke as if the disciples already knew the Comforter that would come. Because it would be Jesus himself that came back to them in Spirit.

All of the John chapters 14-17 speak of God’s oneness.

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." Mark 12:29

“For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell:” Colossians 1:19
“For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9
Jesus is not in the godhead, the godhead is in Jesus.

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils believe, and tremble.” James 2:19

“And immediatley I was in the spirit: and behold a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” Revelation 4:2

Hebrews tells us that when Jesus walked the earth that was the “days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications . . .” Hebrews 5:7

Ephesians 1:11 teaches us that God worketh all things after the council of his own will.

When Jesus prayed to the Father, he counciled his own will.

Jesus said," I have power to lay it down (his own life) and I have power to take it again." John 10:18
Did the Father or Jesus raise Jesus from the dead? One God

In the Angel’s announcement to Mary he told her "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. " Luke 1:35
So is the father of Jesus the Holy Ghost or God? One God

Being seated at the right hand of the Father? The right hand is referred to dozens of times in the Bible and always speaks of a position or place of power.

Well I have barely scratched the surface of the scripture concerned God’s oneness. It is not so crazy to believe that there is One God and that One God manifested himself as the Son and as the Holy spirit. I mean He can be in two places at once can’t he? 🙂 How many thrones will you see in Heaven?

I personally prayed to God for clarification of who He is and He confirms His Oneness always. I am going to bow out because I have a large family and am neglecting them as I type this long post. I wish you all the best as you follow Christ.
Click to expand...
You demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Trinity. There IS one God. The three Persons are consubstantial. You also ask why it is impossible for God to manifest Himself in two different places at the same time. Why, then, is it not possible that the One God is Three Persons? And just because you asked God for clarification, doesn’t mean that your personal revelation is correct. You forget that Christ promised to guide His Church. Through the centuries, we have grown in understanding of this faith of ours, but it was ALWAYS so. You disregard the Church Fathers and their incredible insight, and all the work of counsels undertaken to more fully understand the Faith. This seems prideful, does it not?

Also, the Didache is dated by most scholars to the late first century? Like around 70 AD, which is what I put? Hmmm… That sounds like when the Gospels were written…
 
ka4life said:
I’m afraid your anger at me is misplaced. I didn’t misrepresent anyone. I copied the quote from another source so you will have to go to that source if you wish. What do you with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Click to expand...
I am not angered at you or anyone, but the tactics anger me when there is an intentional misrepresentation of the other person. It angers me if Caatholics misrepresent a non-catholics. I found the source you copied from, and I looked up the citation it gave from Cardinal Ratzinger from his book called Introduction to Christianity because it struck me odd that he would say that Matthew 27:19 was added in the 2nd century as a Trinitarian formula. But it did not take long to see that your source added some things to the quote that changed the whole context of what the Cardinal said, when in fact he was talking about the Apostles Creed. When dirty tricks like that are done then that throws all credability out the door for the rest of the citations given by that source. I may look into that Catholic Encyclopedia quote out of curiousity but I am not really interested because first of all the Encyclopedia is not authoratative, and second of all I would bet that the source that quotes it has probably either added some things or omitted something that takes away the true context of the passage.
 
This is one of those questions that stem from the faith in the Bible alone.

The question then becomes: Which version of the Bible is inspired? The original manuscript by the author? The text as accepted by the Church? A certain translation, such as the Septuagint, or the King James (Authorized Version)?

However, Catholics don’t have this problem. The text as accepted by the Church is inspired, and where variants exist, the Church has the authority to designate (when it matters) which one or ones we accept.

And, in this case, we accept the text with the Trinitarian formula.
 
bmonk said:
This is one of those questions that stem from the faith in the Bible alone.

The question then becomes: Which version of the Bible is inspired? The original manuscript by the author? The text as accepted by the Church? A certain translation, such as the Septuagint, or the King James (Authorized Version)?

However, Catholics don’t have this problem. The text as accepted by the Church is inspired, and where variants exist, the Church has the authority to designate (when it matters) which one or ones we accept.

And, in this case, we accept the text with the Trinitarian formula.
Click to expand...
Excellent points!
 
Copland3, could you do us the favor of giving us the real words of our Holy Father, so that we can compare them to K4life’s “quote”?

K4life, why don’t you admit to being a Oneness Pentecostal, instead of hiding under the term, “Apostolic”?

And now, you are trying to change the discussion away from baptism, to the term “Trinity.” Well, nobody here will disagree that the term wasn’t used in the first century. Neither was the word “Bible” as we know it. Back then, it just meant “library.” Then somebody added “Holy” to it, as a way to separate a secular collection of books from this sacred one.

Getting back to baptism…

The Apostle John is said to have died around the year 100.

The Didache, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, is placed by most scholars during the mid to late first century - while St. John was still around…

St. Ignatius (quoted in a previous post) lived ca. 30-107. He was alive when the Didache was written.

Irenaeus lived ca. 120-202. He missed St. Ignatius by a few years. (If he wasn’t quoted in a previous post, see his Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17.)

So we have a continuous line of instruction to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, from Jesus Himself all the way to the 3rd century.

Other Mentions:
Hippolytus, 170-236, Against the Heresies of one Noetus.
Cyprian, 200-258, in Epistles 24, 62, 72, 74; and Treatise 12, 2nd book, #26, etc.

OK, I’m tired now, so will stop searching the Early Church Fathers, and go to bed. But before I go, K4life, since you raised a “straw man,” let me do so, too: Who founded your church, and when?
 
Ruthie_again said:
Copland3, could you do us the favor of giving us the real words of our Holy Father, so that we can compare them to K4life’s “quote”?
Click to expand...
As soon as I get time later I will copy the passage. But people can easily find it in Cardinal Ratzinger’s book called Introduction to Christianity on pages 82-83 chapter 2.
 
Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger said, who is now Pope, notice that he is talking about the Apostles’ Creed being the profession of faith that took shape in the 2nd and third centuries, while the quote that ka4life uses a source that dishonestly adds to the text by making Cardinal Ratzinger look like he is talking about Matthew 28:19 being a 2nd or 3rd century invention written in Rome. That kind of dishonesty and deceit destroys any credibility of any other citation he has made!
The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Click to expand...
Now here is the quote by ka4life made that added and manipulated and corrupted what the Cardinal said
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top