Matthew 28:19 A Forgery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigdawg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We need to thank ka4life for bringing his arguments to the table and arguing them forcefully. In both his presentations and in especially Copland 3’s responses, we can appreciate the outlines of both positions. Let us pray that this exchange leads to better understanding of each other’s faith traditions.
 
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...
How convenient.

Who said I was hiding behind the term Apostolic. I am proud to be Apostolic and it is a Oneness Pentecostal faith that was founded on the day of Pentecost.

Who wrote the Didache anyway?:
 
Thank you, Copland3. That really brings the deceit of K4life’s sources to light. It is obvious in the original that our Holy Father is referring to the text of our “profession of faith”; i.e. the Creed.

It’s grammatically dishonest to insert things into quotes using parentheses. That implies that whatever is inside those parentheses is the author’s thought. Thus, one would read the references to Mt. 28:19 as His Holiness’ own words. To make it honest, K4life’s sources should have used brackets, that is, “[Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian]” instead of “(Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian).”

And their ending the quote with a period is particularly dishonest, since there is a semicolon in the real thing. That semicolon lets us know that he’s about to say more on the subject. But if the misquoters had used the accepted method of quoting a partial sentence and ended with an ellipse (…) I would have wanted to look at the true source - and would have found the truth.

K4life, I hope you can see the dishonesty of your sources. I hope it inspires you to think twice about what they say, and to look for the truth by going to the original writings, and reading them in context.

Especially the Bible.
 
Hello, please allow me to introduce myself as a child of God. I do not under any circumstances want to offend anyone or argue the Holy word of God. I believe oneness because of several verses in the old testament starting with " Deuteronomy 4:35
Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him." . Also, if you are familiar with Scofield studies ( highly referenced by many faiths) I had questions of my own, which I prayed about often. I thought of " Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." " Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." I felt like he was speaking to his creation because he made man last, after the rest. In my Scofield, his notes read the same thoughts. If you really want to find out truth about what was changed, look at the Catholic encyclopedia volume 2, page 263. It’s right there.🙂 It states plainly that the Catholic church changed the formula to father, son, and holy ghost. nowhere else does it mention this formula.
 
freedomnhisname said:
Hello, please allow me to introduce myself as a child of God. I do not under any circumstances want to offend anyone or argue the Holy word of God. I believe oneness because of several verses in the old testament starting with " Deuteronomy 4:35
Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him." . Also, if you are familiar with Scofield studies ( highly referenced by many faiths) I had questions of my own, which I prayed about often. I thought of " Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." " Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." I felt like he was speaking to his creation because he made man last, after the rest. In my Scofield, his notes read the same thoughts. If you really want to find out truth about what was changed, look at the Catholic encyclopedia volume 2, page 263. It’s right there.🙂 It states plainly that the Catholic church changed the formula to father, son, and holy ghost. nowhere else does it mention this formula.
Click to expand...
Because Encyclopedias are infallible, right? And all the other evidence that we have presented BESIDES Matthew, from the Didache (written the same time as the Gospels) onward to the Church Fathers, is just tossed out, right? Of course…

Ka4life, I’m not sure who wrote the Didache. Wikipedia (another infallible encyclopedia :rolleyes:) claims it may have been followers of Matthew, and may have been written at around the same time as the Gospel of Matthew. No matter how you spin it, it is extremely early evidence of the Trinitarian Formula.
 
Wow! COPLAND 3 I am amazed at how many times you have brought someone else’s misquote and attributed it to me to make me look dishonest. And as far as I’m concerned there is only ONE HOLY FATHER so the holy father you refer is definitely fallible as are all men.
 
ka4life said:
Wow! COPLAND 3 I am amazed at how many times you have brought someone else’s misquote and attributed it to me to make me look dishonest. And as far as I’m concerned there is only ONE HOLY FATHER so the holy father you refer is definitely fallible as are all men.
Click to expand...
You posted it as a case against our belief without any signs of refusing it, so of course I link it to you. Once I learned that you copied and pasted it from another source then that is the way I worded it.
 
thesmiter1 said:
Because Encyclopedias are infallible, right? And all the other evidence that we have presented BESIDES Matthew, from the Didache (written the same time as the Gospels) onward to the Church Fathers, is just tossed out, right? Of course…

Ka4life, I’m not sure who wrote the Didache. Wikipedia (another infallible encyclopedia :rolleyes:) claims it may have been followers of Matthew, and may have been written at around the same time as the Gospel of Matthew. No matter how you spin it, it is extremely early evidence of the Trinitarian Formula.
Click to expand...
I put no faith in a document written by WHO KNOWS? and that directly contradicts what Peter said in Acts 2:38. Isn’t Peter your first Pope and the line that all of your Popes are supposedly decendants of?

Scripture is to be studied INCLUSIVELY as opposed to EXCLUSIVELY. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

You cannot take one single scripture and build a doctrine on it. We must take verses in context, include other verses and arrive at an inclusive answer. For instance, if you take John 3:16 alone, then simple belief will save you. The Bible says that even the devils believe in Jesus (James 2:19) and they are certainly not saved. Romans 10:13 says they that call upon the Lord will be saved. Well then does that mean you don’t have to repent or be baptized? Titus 3:5 tells us that he saved us according to his mercy. Mark 16:16 says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.Matthew 28:19 says nothing about repentence. Phillipians 2:12 says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Does that mean everyone can have their own version of salvation as long as they are fearful and trembling? Of course not. Any one of these verses standing alone does not tell us the whole picture. We must take all scripture and study it inclusively to arrive at God’s design for our salvation.

All that being said, Matthew 28:19 is not a stand alone scripture. It needs to be studied alongside the rest of the Holy Scripture and the other scriptures attest to baptism in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus, not the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
 
bigdawg said:
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?
Click to expand...
I used to ell my students that the most important question in science is: how do you know?

You want to see a reference, please.

But they often say, “Well, how do you know the Bible is right the way it is?”

You never rise. You say, “I didn’t claim anything you did, put up or shut up.” Only, yanno, be more polite.

Or not.

Depends.

How do you know works in rather a wide variety of situations. The burden of proof is always on the claimer.
 
asteroid said:
I have a Greek New Testament here, given to me when I was in college.

This book gives the Greek text according to very modern scholarship (Nestle-Aland text 26th edition), and underneath the text gives ALL variant readings and the different manuscripts you can find them in…
Click to expand...
Can I get the name and publishing info on this book? Please.
 
ka4life said:
I put no faith in a document written by WHO KNOWS? and that directly contradicts what Peter said in Acts 2:38. Isn’t Peter your first Pope and the line that all of your Popes are supposedly decendants of?

Scripture is to be studied INCLUSIVELY as opposed to EXCLUSIVELY. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

You cannot take one single scripture and build a doctrine on it. We must take verses in context, include other verses and arrive at an inclusive answer. For instance, if you take John 3:16 alone, then simple belief will save you. The Bible says that even the devils believe in Jesus (James 2:19) and they are certainly not saved. Romans 10:13 says they that call upon the Lord will be saved. Well then does that mean you don’t have to repent or be baptized? Titus 3:5 tells us that he saved us according to his mercy. Mark 16:16 says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.Matthew 28:19 says nothing about repentence. Phillipians 2:12 says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Does that mean everyone can have their own version of salvation as long as they are fearful and trembling? Of course not. Any one of these verses standing alone does not tell us the whole picture. We must take all scripture and study it inclusively to arrive at God’s design for our salvation.

All that being said, Matthew 28:19 is not a stand alone scripture. It needs to be studied alongside the rest of the Holy Scripture and the other scriptures attest to baptism in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus, not the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
We DO take Scripture in its complete form. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned as separate Persons several times throughout Scripture. We have posted evidence of this, and you refute it by saying that God presents Himself in three different ways at the same time (which does not coincide with the way Jesus refers to His Father and the Paraclete). This evidence, in conjunction with Matthew, AND Tradition, lead us to believe in the Trinity.

And you may not realize this, but we DO baptize in Jesus’ name, ALONG with the other Persons of the One God, of whom the Father and Son are consubstantial, and whom the Holy Spirit proceeds from. Nothing there contradicts Scripture. Your interpretation of a God of a single Person who presents Himself in multiple ways is not supported by the way Scripture refers to God.

Genesis 1: 26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

John 1: 1-3 - 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

John 1: 14 - And the** Word became flesh and dwelt among us**, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Again, Scripture certainly seems to reference a consubstantial God. Referencing God the Word and God the Father in two COMPLETELY different ways (not to mention Jesus’ reference to the Paraclete, and many more Scriptural examples) do not make ANY sense unless God is a Trinity of three Persons.
 
Ruthie_again said:
Thank you, Copland3. That really brings the deceit of K4life’s sources to light. It is obvious in the original that our Holy Father is referring to the text of our “profession of faith”; i.e. the Creed.
.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. Here’s that part of the quote:
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...
So both the Creed and the Scripture text in Matthew came from Rome. Of course, Ratzinger wasn’t writing in English so I think the connotations, rather than straight definitions, of “invention” and “fabricated” make it sound more scandalous than it, in fact, is.

I think the historical context matters here. Mathew was used as a teaching tool for spreading the Gospel and the Church. So they put the baptismal formula in it. Quite possibly it was originally “in parentheses” rather than a direct attribution to Jesus. Recopying resulted in it looking like part of the original quote. There are a few places scholars thinks notes were inserted that became incorporated into the text.

In any case, there is no reason to presume any nefarious motives on behalf of the Church Fathers or Bishop of Rome. Essentially, they codified practice, as far as I can see. Jesus gave them leave to do so.
 
Julia_Mae said:
I don’t think so. Here’s that part of the quote:

So both the Creed and the Scripture text in Matthew came from Rome. Of course, Ratzinger wasn’t writing in English so I think the connotations, rather than straight definitions, of “invention” and “fabricated” make it sound more scandalous than it, in fact, is.

I think the historical context matters here. Mathew was used as a teaching tool for spreading the Gospel and the Church. So they put the baptismal formula in it. Quite possibly it was originally “in parentheses” rather than a direct attribution to Jesus. Recopying resulted in it looking like part of the original quote. There are a few places scholars thinks notes were inserted that became incorporated into the text.

In any case, there is no reason to presume any nefarious motives on behalf of the Church Fathers or Bishop of Rome. Essentially, they codified practice, as far as I can see. Jesus gave them leave to do so.
Click to expand...
You are completely wrong and not even paying attention because what you just quoted from ka4life’s quote is not even part of the text from Ratzinger but its the comment given by ka4life’s source that was explaining Ratzinger’s quote. The quote that ka4life posted actually did put quotation marks on Ratzinger’s words, not to mention adding a couple things to change the context, but before quote of Ratzinger there is comments made by ka4life’s source saying “He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19.”

Then ka4life does give Ratzinger’s quote but with additions to changes the context, I will made those additions in bold letters, “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.”

Then the part that you mistakenly think that Ratzinger says is not Ratzinger’s but the comments by the source that ka4life uses, which is this “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.”

Give it up on this so-called quote of Ratzinger because the source who made this argument has completely screwed it all up and needs to admit their error or their deceptive motives!
 
COPLAND_3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The only way this will work is to scan the section and post an image. No one will believe this otherwise.
 
Julia_Mae said:
The only way this will work is to scan the section and post an image. No one will believe this otherwise.
Click to expand...
If i scanned it and verified it that way would you then be convinced? I really doubt it. I have given the quote, I have even given the page numbers to it! Its a very popular book and easy to look up! Rarely do I see this kind of defense and denial after someone has been proven wrong! I’m in awe at the attempt to keep this going!
 
MarcoPolo said:
Here’s the book online, scanned by Google Books. Copland is 100% correct. Pages 82-83, just as he said. Ratzinger is talking about the Creed.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Marco. I don’t know why this didn’t pop up for me on Google when I searched. Here’s the section:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I read the whole chapter, I couldn’t find anything even faintly similar to the phraseology of the purported quote that could have been appended in the wrong place. So, something was indeed fabricated and now we have some direct evidence.

[/thread]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top