Matthew 28:19

[Dave]

4. The Test of Analogy

Does any other scripture make reference to baptism in the Triune name? No. Does any other scripture reference baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus "in His name. "(John 14:26) This is because Jesus is the "common denominator " [Literally:Name] in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent by the following scriptures:

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away:for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See also John 7:39).

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Notice that they were baptized as a result of the preaching of the name of Jesus Christ, not the titles "Father, Son and Holy Ghost." By analogy, we should therefore be baptized in Jesus' name, because the invoking of His Name is the catalyst of understanding that prepares us for the baptism of the Spirit, which is also given in His name. (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5)

[Dave]

5. The Test of Consequence

When we are baptized, do we "put on" the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? No. Do we put on the name of Jesus? Yes. When we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to all baptismal accounts recorded in scripture, we are quite literally being baptized "into" the name of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

No mention is made in scripture of any baptism being related to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Every actual account mentions a clear connection with the person of Christ, and His atoning sacrifice.

[Dave]

6. The Test of Practice

Did the disciples, as they were implementing the "Great Commission" ever once baptize into the Trinity? Never! Did they baptize in the name of Jesus? Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.) The argument has been made when defending Triune immersion; "I would rather obey Jesus, than to imitate the Apostles." This kind of reasoning though, places the Apostles in rebellion, and makes all Apostolic baptisms contrary to the word of God. If all of God's Word was inspired, and it was, then we should not try to pit one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of God's Word in proper context, and rightly apply it to our lives. It is easier to believe that the disciples followed the final instructions of Christ, than to believe that they immediately disobeyed His command.

[Dave]

7. The Test of Significance

What significance is mentioned in scripture for baptizing believers in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None. What significance is conveyed toward being baptized in the name of Jesus? First, scripture teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:3eight). Second, baptism in His name alone is associated with the promise of God's Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, baptism in the name of Jesus is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices or even die with Christ. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being baptized into Christ is how we 'put on' Christ (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, baptism in His name is called the "circumcision of Christ," and reflects our "putting off" of the man of sin, therefore becoming a " new creature in Christ Jesus. " (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the physical life of Jesus, the crucifixion of the Son of God for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Trinitarian baptism can only express faith in Catholic theology itself.

[Dave]

8. The Test of Parallel Accounts

Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the gospels of the "Great Commission" of the Church. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he wrote of Jesus speaking in the third person:"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. "This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus spoke in the first person, "in my name. "Further, the Gospel of Mark also records another version of the "Great Commission," using some of the same patterns of speech:"Go ye. .. all the world. .. preach the gospel. .. every creature. .. baptized. .. in my name. .. "(Mark 16:15-1eight) Of course, it is not baptism that "in my name" refers to here, but rather the works that the disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, the similarity is striking, for neither is baptism explicitly mentioned there, but that disciples should be made, "in my name. "

[Dave]

9. The Test of Complimentary Citation

While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of Trinitarian baptism, there is a striking resemblance between the actual wording of Matthew 28:18-20 and Romans 1:4-5. Matthew contains the Commission of Christ to His Apostles, while the Romans account is Paul's acceptance of his own commission as an apostle. Consider the following similarities:

Matthew 28:18-20........................................Romans 1:4-5

"all power is given unto Me". ....................... "the Son of God with power"

"Go ye". ...................................................... "received. .. apostleship"

"teaching them to observe". .......................... "for obedience to the faith"

"all nations". ................................................. "all nations"

"in My name". ............................................... "for His name"

[Dave]

10. The Test of Principle

It is written:"whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. .." (Colossians 3:17). In this principle laid down by Paul, the implication is clear. The word "whatsoever" would of certain necessity include baptism, which is a command involving both word and deed. The traditional wording of Matthew, containing the Trinitarian wording, is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter wording, without the falsified insertion, follows this principle. This establishes which of the two wordings is the contradictory one. God's Word does not contradict itself; rather it compliments and completes itself. Paul not only expressed this principle, but he applied it specifically to the topic of baptism. In Acts 19:1-6 there is an account concerning the disciples of John who had been baptized under his ministry. Like baptism in Jesus' name, John's baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:3eight). John message, which accompanied his baptism, was that One would come after him, who would "take away the sins of the world" and "baptize with the Holy Spirit. "Paul introduced these disciples to that One, and applied the above principle re-baptized them. "When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them" And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings in Matthew 28:19, we find very strong support for the phrase "in My name. "

[Dave]

I wasn't trying to spam the website, when I would combine the text, it would be one big jumble of words without the italics. Separated, I could highlight the areas like the website did.

Each one has very sound proof!

Paul, all things here point to how correct you were in questioning this ending in the syriac. With all the evidences, you can tell The Holy Spirit knew ahead of time this verse was going to be messed with, so He loaded proofs throughout various texts. It is very striking!

[gbausc]

Shlama all,

The Greek phrase, "en tw onoma"-"In the Name" means "In The authority", according to A.T. Robertson , the foremost NT Greek authority.All known mss., Greek,Latin and Aramaic, that contain this passage, have the same reading, translated into English, Matthew 28:19 reads:
"Go ye, therefore, and disciple all the nations, Immersing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,"???Rotherham's Emphasized Bible

All of the mss. - thousands of them- all Greek mss. , all Latin mss., all Peshitta mss. (The two Old Syriac mss. are missing the last section of Matthew 27-28), and all ancient versions contain this reading. Eusebius quotes it in exactly the same words (see former post about this).

While no other verse has such a command, no other verse has a command to baptise in any other way. Jesus did not say,"Use these words when you baptize". He gave the authority of The Godhead to His disciples in baptism, as "all authority in Heaven and earth" had been given to Him. (See verse 18). "As the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you." -also verse 18. The disciples were given the full authority from The Triune God to make disciples and baptise them.

There is no mention of what words to speak, when baptizing, simply the authority to make converts and baptize.

No other verse like John 1:1 exists either. Does that make it false ? All mss. agree on that verse as well.

Only once does the Bible say "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" . Should we change it, because the Bible says, "God is not a man..." ? All mss. support John 1:14 as is.

No one has refuted my contention that The name "Jesus Christ" includes reference to The Trinity, by its very nature. A.T. Robertson agrees on this point as well, as would any sound Bible exegete.
Those railing againt Matthew 28:19 do not believe in the Trinity , Dave. That is the only reason they cavil against it. Is that now your position ?

Are you saying that all the men of God who baptize in the name of The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit for two thousand years, including most Protestants, and more specifically, most Pentecostals and charismatics, have been dishonoring Jesus Christ by naming The Father and the Holy Spirit at baptism?

In order to remove the Trinity teaching, one would need to remove quite a few other readings, including 2 Cor. 13:14, Isaiah 48:16 and Acts 10:38, among many passages which mention all Three together in context, especially Jesus' baptism in Matthew 3 and Luke 3, as well as in Mark 1 and John 1.

Burktha,

[Dave]

You should pay attention to what I say at times Dave.

I fully support and believe in the triune nature of GOD, as can be witnessed from Genesis when GOD made man, plurality with singular action. I also believe that 1 John 5:7 belongs in the good book, but not this version of matthew as it adheres to church teachings not apostlic teachings.

What I don't believe in is false scripture. I'm one that "actually" does love GOD's word and hates mankinds additions to it.

What you should be doing is refuting what I posted against this syriac translation, not choosing scholars that fit your bill and attempting to hide behind them, and desiring me or others to refute them.

What I want you to do is refute each one of those Dave, see if there is any scripture that refutes this. That's why I jumped on this since it utilizes scripture itself, no and's, if's, or buts or implied meanings like you have recently started using Dave.

It uses scripture, and lists every instance of utilizing Jesus's name for everything.

I think this is the strongest evidence yet against your little syriac text, so let's see you use the peshitta like you do on others and prove what I posted as wrong.

[gbausc]

I have already answered you, Dave.
My so called "Little Syriac text" happens to agree with "The Big Greek text" and every other text you can produce.
Where is the manuscript that reads different ?

So far, all I have seen is a quotation of Eusebius, and even he quotes differently in different places.
And even if Shem Tob has omitted The trinity in Matthew 28:19, given its edited nature throughout,it carries no weight with me in those places where it differs.


So your "best example" proves, not only that the Peshitta is false, but every known manuscript of the text in question, in every known language of man. So where did the reading come from - The Peshitta- "My Little Syriac text" ? Sounds like The Mouse that Roared to me !

If not, where did it come from, the Greek ? If so, why are you piccking on "My Little Syriac" ?

And if it didn't come from Greek, where did it come from ? If it did, how can it be that not one of 5000 Greek mss. has it right ? The oldest Greek ms. goes back to AD 125, right ?

Do you deny that "Christ" means "The Anointed One ?" Do you deny that The Father anointed Him ?
Do you deny the He anointed Him with the Holy Spirit ? Which of these is false ?
Do you accept Acts 10:38, or will you edit that verse also, without any ms. evidence ?

If you have real faith in scripture, Dave, then you accept the above three statements about the Trinity.

It is a simple and logical step from there to see that The Name of "Jesus Christ", or "Yeshua Meshikha", includes The Trinity. Every verse that mentions baptism mentions the Name of Jesus Christ, and as such, includes the concept of the Trinity- "Father,Son and Spirit" .

Is this a lie from Satan ?

I think not ! I think it makes Satan pretty upset, actually.

[Dave]

3. The Test of Doctrine

Is any doctrine or concept of scripture based on an understanding of a threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any statement in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! This is clarified in 1 Corinthians 1:13:"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" These words, when carefully analyzed, suggest that believers should to be baptized in the name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable love, gave us His only Son to die in our stead, He being later raised to incorruptibility by the Spirit of God. But it is the Lord Jesus Himself who was crucified, and therefore in His name believers must be baptized in water.

Dave, your refusing to use scripture in this regard and your falling back on this implication theory of yours.

Everything I posted uses scripture, everything, read that again Dave:

Is Christ divided?

You keep saying so and The Apostle Paul says different. Start using scripture here if your going to refute what I have posted as nothing.

All ten of those examples uses scripture, not conjecture or implication. And yes, that would make all of these manuscripts wrong, wether greek or syriac or whatnot. That is why everything has to be validated.

Also, Eusebius has been found to claim this earlier scripture saying 21 times, not once or twice, 21 times buddy.

Do I find it hard to understand that he had a copy that was earlier, prior to individuals playing around with these things? Not at all, it would not surprise me at all. Do I find it hard to believe that the church corrupted this as much as possible? Oh, quite so. Is my faith at stake here? Heh, hardly, maybe yours is, but I can adamantly speak for myself to you, not in the least bit. I know who bought me, and the blood that was spilt for me to receive.

Either start quoting scripture or just give up Dave. Conjecturing, postering, shoot,...plain old lying is not part of the picture here. I found a great wealth of scripture, not opinions.

[Dave]

The reason I want to stop this stuff outside the text Dave is this:

In legal practice where copies of an original lost document vary, the "Internal Evidence" is used to resolve the discrepancy. That is, a comparison of the undisputed text with text in question, in order to determine which of the variant wordings is more likely to be the original.

I posted this very statement at the start of posting all the tests. The internal evidence has to weight more than anything, more than age, more than church father quotes, everything.

If we have a dispute on the text, well than, let the internal evidence speak.

If you have scripture evidence that can prove different than what is being provided, then start refuting.

My method is completely sound, and any reasonable Christian would agree wholeheartedly, even if it would displace centuries old traditions, the truth is what matters no matter what.

If all the texts are wrong at this point, and it can be proved, then let's fix them, that is all there is to it. This is why GOD uses individuals throughout the ages, ones who listen and care about what HE wants only, not things of the world and mankind. Ones who have a direction from HIM.

[gbausc]

Matthew 28:19 is scripture. You have no manuscript of scripture that reads differently.
Quotations of Church fathers don't have the authority of a manuscript of scripture.

You cannot simply change it because you don't like it. That is not scholarship. We would have no Bible left, if that's how it were handled.

I gave you Acts 10:38 and Isaiah 61. They are scripture. I gave you Matthew 3, Luke 3, Mark 1 and John 1. They all refer to The anointing of our Lord by The Father with The Holy Spirit.

You quote Eusebius, yet Eusebius also quotes Matthew 28:19 just as all the manuscripts have it.
You are the one not reading my posts, my friend.

How did Eusebius happen to quote the verse just as every manuscript has it, if in A.D. 325 , the reading did not exit ? That is when he wrote it.

Matthew 28:19 is a command of God. Here are the warnings in scripture about tampering with God's word:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
De 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
De 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Mt 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mt 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Doesn't it bother you ,just a little bit, when people come along and try to edit the Bible , simply because they disagree with it ?

We are not talking about textual criticism- comparing mss. to see which has the correct reading. We are talking about throwing all the mss. out and substituting our own reading.

You're pulling stuff out of your ass, Dave, and trying to pass it off as the word of God. But that's been your method for as long as I can remember.

Hope that was enough scripture for ya.
I'd be very surprised if you actually address what I have written here.

[gbausc]

Matthew 28:19 is scripture. You have no manuscript of scripture that reads differently.
Quotations of Church fathers don't have the authority of a manuscript of scripture.

You cannot simply change it because you don't like it. That is not scholarship. We would have no Bible left, if that's how it were handled.

I gave you Acts 10:38 and Isaiah 61. They are scripture. I gave you Matthew 3, Luke 3, Mark 1 and John 1. They all refer to The anointing of our Lord by The Father with The Holy Spirit.

You quote Eusebius, yet Eusebius also quotes Matthew 28:19 just as all the manuscripts have it.
You are the one not reading my posts, my friend.

How did Eusebius happen to quote the verse just as every manuscript has it, if in A.D. 325 , the reading did not exist ? That is when he wrote it.

Matthew 28:19 is a command of God. Here are the warnings in scripture about tampering with God's word:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
De 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
De 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Mt 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mt 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Doesn't it bother you ,just a little bit, when people come along and try to edit the Bible , simply because they disagree with it ?

We are not talking about textual criticism- comparing mss. to see which has the correct reading. We are talking about throwing all the mss. out and substituting our own reading.

You're pulling stuff out of your ass, Dave, and trying to pass it off as the word of God. But that's been your method for as long as I can remember.

Hope that was enough scripture for ya.
I'd be very surprised if you actually address what I have written here.

Yours for The Word of Truth,

Dave