Matthew 28:19

[trettep]

Shlama Paul,

Speaking of evidence from church fathers, you might be interested in reading what Ignatius ,Tertullian Cyprian & Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote . These all wrote from AD 120 to AD 265 :
A reader recently noted that Ploughman apparently missed some probable allusions to this text in patristic writers. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, in Chapter 2 (see here) says, Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost....". Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost". Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." and alludes to the same passage in other places as well. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, "....the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"

I hate to spoil the fun, guys, but you don't have a proverbial "leg to stand on". They have Eusebius beat by more than two centuries.

Any more questions ?

For the Truth,

Dave

Dave wouldn't you agree the annointing of the Holy Spirit in the Temple? If so where was the oil in the former Temple. My doctrine of proving truth is to let the Covenants prove each other. The Old temple had two rooms. The Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. The Holy Place represents Jesus and the Most Holy Place represents the Father. There was no third room. No one can come to the Father except through the Son this is represented in the old Temple as there is no way to get to the Most Holy Place without first comging through the Holy Place.

That proves that the Holy Spirit is not another Person along with the vast amount of scriptures (I believe 17) that say we should baptize in the name of Jesus. The former should close the book on what the Truth is as I believe this is how God wants His Truth analyzed by confirmed one Covenant against the other.

Paul

[Dave]

You and your text have already been refuted Dave, and you need to accept it. I know your trying to destroy the source, but the source is scripture here.

What Paul and I focused in on was scripture. I took ploughman's examples because they were focused in on scripture sections that agreed within the NT.

Just like his test here:

2. The Test of Frequency

Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once.

Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23.

Completely valid discernment of scripture. It rightly divides.

We could have used your method instead, and tried to look for implications or those "possibilities" that so many others get caught up in, but that is easily pronounced as heretical, and does not give credence to The Lord in the process, it is selfish instead, and very untruthful to the audience.

I know it's hard to realize how the very scripture that you have adhered to all these years has had a mistake. It must be quite the eyeopener also for you to realize that all the articles and such that you have promoted over this syriac text as being original, are now false.

I know if I was in your position, I would be trying to do the same thing that you are currently doing, change the topic and work that until I can break those who challenge me down, look for ways to refute the source and create doubt on the challengers part. Refuse to accept defeat at all costs, etc, etc, etc.

As I said, the source is scripture, and you, yourself, have not a leg to stand on, unless you wish to lie to yourself here, which I fully expect you to shortly.

And that is it, the only thing that is against you is scripture Dave. The very fact that we even have a quote that aligns with scripture to make the current scripture section show it's "out-of-place-ness" if you will, is remarkable, but a treasure for those looking.

[Dave]

Also, my example of Peter utilizing the name of The Lord at the temple to heal the person, is this same EXACT authority.

It is the same usage of the term "in my name," here.

Same exact terminology, in fact, the Sanhedrin asked Peter and John: "By what power or in what name have ye done this?"

You didn't see Peter or John quoting the trinity to them did you?

The same exact authority granted here in healing as it is granted in all things from The Lord. So why didn't Peter call out the triune nature of GOD here in this case, if this was so, as Dave would have us believe?

It is easy for someone to "suppose" or "presume" but in this case, scripture is adamantely against Dave in all accounts.

You need to just accept your defeat here Dave, you and your text lost.

[Dave]

Come on Dave, where's your scripture at?

Come on Cleatus, bring it on, heh.

Go ahead and throw those topics out that in hopes of Paul and I arguing over them between ourselves instead of concentrating on the subject. Come on Dave, throw another sensitive topic out there instead of the main subject. Think you can weasel out of this somehow?

Your just like clockwork Dave, and I've seen your actions before in a few other people already in life.

Come on Dave, explain why Peter and John didn't utilize the trinity terminology when the cripple was healed? It is "in my name" and the same exact authority?!

People are aware of this completely, they are not fooled by your words and "it must be this" or "to baptise means to baptise in this way, blah, blah, blah."

I've been asking you questions throughout this discourse that you have been completely unable to answer, why? Because you have no proof, you only have conjecture and a false section of scripture that you refuse to admit to.

This has been easy.

[Dave]

Heh, ok this has been interesting, but now it is becoming old, and I wanted to leave this a few posts back rather than let it continue to degrade.

Dave has been unable to provide much of anything in the way of adequate scriptural documentation to support his position, whereas Paul and I have provided an overwhelming amount of scripture support for the documented church father quote, throughout the whole of the NT text.

The key being here that scripture must prove scripture.

It matters not in the ways of how much manuscript documentation one can amass, it matters how the word agrees within itself, since The Holy Spirit is the greater judge in all instances of His word.

Again, I want to leave this now. Dave and his text have been fully refuted.

[gbausc]

Dave, I dun told ya and told ya, Acts says they baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and the Name of Jesus Christ is a revelation of the unity of The Son Jesus "The Anointed One" with His Father The Anointer and The Holy Spirit, with Whom Jesus was anointed (The Anointing).

Here are the verses in Acts about baptism in the name:
(Murdock) Ac 8:16 For he was not yet on any one of them; and they had only been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus.
ewsy Nrmd hmsb wwh Nydme Nyd dwxlb lykde Nwhnm dx le ryg awh tyl (Peshitta) Ac 8:16
Ac 8:16 (KJV) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Ac 10:48 Then he commanded them to be baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Messiah. And they requested him to remain with them some days.
atmwy Nwhtwl awqnd Kya hnm webw axysm ewsy Nrmd hmsb Nwdmend Nwhl dqp Nydyh Ac 10:48
Ac 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Ac 19:5 And when they heard these things, they were baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Messiah.
axysm ewsy Nrmd hmsb wdme wems Nylh dkw Ac 19:5
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

1Co 1:13 Now was Messiah divided? Or was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Nwtdme owlwpd hmsb wa Nwkypa le Pqdza owlwp aml wa axysm hl glpta amld 1Co 1:13
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

The Peshitta has some interesting differences from the Greek texts of these verses. But first, let's notice Acts 8:16.

The Samaritan church had not yet received the Holy Spirit, "but they had only been baptized in the Name of our Lord Jesus."
When Paul went to Ephesus, he found a group of disciples there who also had not received The Holy Spirit. He asked them (Acts 19:5) "To what were you baptized ? " They said, "Into the baptism of John".
Paul then said they should be baptized "in The Name of our Lord Jesus The Messiah." Then they were baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus The Messiah. He then laid his hand on them and they received The Holy Spirit and spoke in various tongues and prophesied.

The Greek texts do not contain the full name "Our Lord Jesus The Messiah" here, as does The Peshitta. The same applies to Acts 10:48. The Name of "The Messiah" is a very important one. Those who hadn't received The Holy Spirit had not heard the doctrine of "The Messiah Yeshua".

Remember, baptism, according to the command of our Lord, was to follow teaching: "Go teach all nations, baptizing them...". Defective teaching meant defective results. The most important teaching is the teaching of the Person of The Christ. He is the Son of God, The Messiah ([b]The Anointed, called Jehovah in The Peshitta 32 times !) One with His Father and The Holy Spirit, Three coequal Divine Beings united as One Godhead. [/b]

Our salvation depends on the Person of Christ. The Christ is The Christ because of His Father and The Holy Spirit (remember, conceived of The Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb).
Have you ever considered that the Bible teaches Jesus is The Son of The Holy Spirit, physically ? (See Luke 1:35) He is Son of God The Father in the eternal and Spiritual sense, but Son of The Holy Spirit in the physical sense. The Holy Spirit is His "biological Father".Lu 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto 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.


You see, no matter how you cut it, The Trinity is inextricably involved in The Name of The LORD Jesus Christ The Son of God.Whoever confesses Him, confesses The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, or He has not known Who He is.

Teaching is of the utmost importance, when discussing baptism. People are not to be baptized in the Name of Christ Who do not know what The Name signifies. The apostles would not allow it.

The disciples in Ephesus said "We have not even heard of The Holy Spirit." They needed to hear about Him in order to receive Him, is the implied meaning. The apostles would teach the people these things before baptizing them.

As the Name of Jesus The Christ contains the Trinity doctrine in it- You cannot know Who Jehovah Jesus is without knowing The Trinity, because He is The Christ because of The Father and The Spirit.

In Acts 8:16, they did not know of "Jesus The Christ", only " our Lord Jesus". That is, they had not learned that He was Deity and The Anointed One.

In all these texts, The Peshitta consistently uses the full name of our Lord Yeshua The Messiah. Once in Acts 2:38, it calls Him "Jehovah Yeshua":


Ac 2:38 (Dave Bauscher's revision) Simon said to them: Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jehovah Jesus, for the remission of sins; so that ye may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Paul Younan has "THE LORD Yeshua"

asdwqd axwrd atbhwm Nwlbqtd ahjx Nqbwsl ewsy ayrmd hmsb Nwknm sna sna wdmew wbwt Nwems Nwhl rma 38
(Peshitta)

So,in summary, let's see:
Every Greek or Aramaic manuscript in the world that contains Matthew 28:19 has "baptizing them in the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost." Eusebius has it that way five times and "in My Name" 17 times, in AD 325. Five church fathers going back to Ignatius (AD 110) and up to AD 265 , have "baptizing them in the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost."

The Bible teaches, (Acts 10:38, Isaiah 61) that Jesus Christ is "The Anointed One" of God The Father (The Anointer) with The Holy Spirit (The Anointing) See 1 John 2:27 where The Holy Spirit is specifically referred to as "The Anointing".
The name of "Our Lord Jesus The Messiah" is the name referred to in Acts with reference to baptism (consistently in The Peshitta, along with "Jehovah Jesus") , whereas the Greek is inconsistent with regard to the name used: sometimes "Jesus", sometimes "The Lord", sometimes "Jesus Christ or "Christ Jesus".

The name of "Our Lord Jesus The Messiah" is a revelation of The Triunity (Three as One) of God.One cannot believe in The Christ without faith in His Father God and faith in The Holy Spirit.
Trinity doctrine is fundamental to Christianity.

Christ is not divided; He is UNITED with HIS FATHER and with THE HOLY SPIRIT.

He who does not receive this cannot be called a Christian in any true sense of the word. It is basic and elemental to Who Christ is and what it means to know Him and God.

1Co 16:22 (KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
1Co 16:22 (Murdock's translation of Peshitta) Whoever loveth not our Lord Jesus the Messiah, let him be accursed: our Lord cometh.
1Co 16:22 Diaglot) If any one not has affection for the Lord Jesus Anointed, let him be accursed; the Lord comes.

BTW - Maranatha is an Aramaic word found in all the Greek mss. of 1 Corinthians. It is not even translated into Greek. Strange, to say the least, is it not, for a supposed Greek audience who did not speak Aramaic ? But that's a topic for another time.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.

Rev. Dave

[Dave]

Paul,

This section is quite interesting.

After The Apostle Paul had did a little rebuking over the baptism thing in 1st Corinthians, verse 17 of chapter 1 said this;

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words,...."

This was very interesting to find. Two of the aspects of the currect scripture section in matthew deal with baptism and the trinity, whereas in the church father quote of Eusibius, his quote deals with discipleship and the authority of Jesus.

The authority is easily proven, as has been already done, the baptism aspect I had not thought to look into until I reread this section of scripture further.

For Christ did not send me to baptize,...

Wouldn't this be in contradiction to the commissioning from Jesus that is currently in matthew? Certainly would be from what I can tell.

[Dave]

and the Name of Jesus Christ is a revelation of the unity of The Son Jesus "The Anointed One" with His Father The Anointer and The Holy Spirit, with Whom Jesus was anointed (The Anointing).

Hmmmmmmmm. This is interesting here to say the least.

I really would like to go on to something else here but Dave has sparked my interest here.

So Dave,.........your saying that the phrase "in the name" cannot have a literal meaning, that it must be a "revelation" of a fuller sense of the GODHEAD unto the believer??? Very interesting indeed!

I never realised that The Good Lord would overlook the second-hand, meangingless, literal aspect here in such an important area of scripture?! I mean, I'm fully at a disadvantage here as I'm unable to see this "revelation" since I don't read syriac,.....yet your telling me that the peshitta text gives this "revelation" of something more than the greek in it's most literal sense can?!?!

WOW, you mean that in only the syriac language would I see these "revelations" your talking about Dave??? You know, maybe this has something to do with those codes things you spend all your time with also, shoot, if this is a quantifiable demonstration of a unique sort of "revelation" that can only be found here in this syriac text, particularly in this area, you should write an article about it and get this out to the public right away!!! Just think of all the demonstratable scripture support you have here now!!

It's all making sense to me now Dave!! Just look at it,......In my Name,...... Jesus,....... The Christ,...... meaning The Annointed One,.....meaning we must pronounce Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as we are suppose to understand this as a revelation of a fuller sense,.....meaning when Peter healed the cripple at the temple, he may have said "In the name of Jesus," but since he said that good ol magical "revelation" phrase, "The Annointed One of Nazareth," what Peter said wasn't what he said, he really said something else, we just needed to have that "revelation" happen for us to see something much fuller!!!

Man, I have to have these revelations happen!

Just think about it, all of Christianity has been living in the dark ages here, these "revelations" are prime evidence for the very existance of the original text!!!! YOU MUST TELL SOMEONE RIGHT AWAY DAVE!!!!




On the other hand,......maybe The Lord meant what He said here in it's most literal sense??

Hmmmmmmmm, yea, that tends to make more sense, and I wouldn't want to be made out as a kook,.......sorry about that Dave. You may have some trouble with this "revelation" theory, but it is an interesting claim, I give you that!!

[gbausc]

Dave of Diego Garcia,

Claims are not evidence. You make many claims based on Ploughman's, but the evidence is lacking.
No manucripts are offered as evidence, only one church father who contradicts himself with his quotation. Since you value blogging so much, I will
offer a refutation of Ploughman that anyone could get. It answers him point by point.

We were recently asked to have a look at an online version of a 1961 pamphlet titled "A Collection of the Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19," by one A. Ploughman. The point of this little pamphlet was apparently to take a chunk out of the traditional Trinitarian view by suggesting that this verse was altered, and originally referred to baptizing in the name of Jesus (as found in other parts of the NT).
I would begin by noting that our own study of the Trinity makes absolutely no use of Matthew 28:19. This verse is not particularly useful for Trinitarian defense as it theoretically could support any view -- modalism, even tritheism, could be permitted from this verse, for it only lists the members of the Triune Godhead with absolutely no explanation as to their exact relationship. Verse 18 would indicate that the Father is in a functionally superior relationship to the Son, but that says nothing about an ontological relationship; though one may justly argue that it is very unlikely (but not impossible) that all three would be named together if there were not an ontological equality, lest God's glory somehow be compromised.
So in a real sense, arguments about the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 don't serve much of a purpose in this context. However, we have been asked to look at these arguments and offer comment, so we will do so.
Ploughman's work has a certain charm to it. It is filled to the brim with quoted opinions lacking elaboration, and closes with a number of standard threats against those who dare to rupture the pure Word of God. The biggest issue for Ploughman, though, was that this, again, is the only verse that relates the triune baptismal formula. Now we have addressed this briefly against C. Dennis McKinsey: "...at worst this is merely a case where the apostles, on their own initiative, compressed the baptismal formula. But why should this be a problem? Are we bound by ritual constraints this way? To baptize in a name means to baptize in the authority of the named; the Son derives his authority from the Father, who also has authority over the Spirit." Ploughman adds the implication that it is inconceivable that the disciples would disobey this "command" from Jesus to baptize in the Triune Godhead and immediately move to the "Jesus only" formula.
I would now add that one may question whether the triune composition was intended to be a "formula" at all in the sense supposed. To be sure it has a certain structure, but it offers no instructions saying, "This is a formula to be used over baptism." At most it tells the disciples what authority they have to teach and to baptize. (As Gundry puts it -- Matthew commentary, 546 -- the meaning is essentially, to baptize in fundamental reference to the three, and is placed in contrast to the authority for baptism placed in John the Baptist; cf. 3:16, 12:28.) That baptizing in the name of Jesus alone was practiced means nothing and has no relation at all to the commission as it stands. The disciples still went forward doing things -- teaching and baptizing -- with Triune authority; but that does not mean the same thing as someone being baptized into Jesus, with his authority implied as the mediator of the new covenant.
Now all of that aside, Ploughman apparently thinks that Matthew 28:19 was worked over to make Jesus and the Spirit equal in prominence to the Father, but really, aside from other considerations in the article linked above, the "Jesus only" baptismal formula does that all on its own. The theology of baptism, and the "name of Jesus" reference in Acts 2:21, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," hearkens back to a prophecy in Joel 2:32, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered..." Jesus is no more or no less divine when named alone in this context than he is when paired with Father and Spirit; and of course we have the Triune collection in other contexts (1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:13, 1 Pet. 1:2, etc), and the formula as Matthew offers it is also found in the Didache (7:1-3), which some date prior to 70 (though Ploughman dismisses it in one paragraph as a later product, 80-150 AD, full of "gross errors" that would later be abused by the evil Catholic church). Nevertheless, what Ploughman thinks may have been created to support an "emerging doctrine" was actually far from needed. His comment that "the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19" reveals a patent absurdity -- and at best suggests that those using Matthew 28:19 as such a bedrock were no more informed than Ploughman.
Ploughman next takes up the gauntlet of textual criticism, and in that arena is obliged to admit that no manuscript lacks Matt. 28:19 as it stands, then resort to the old skeptical standby of begging that we don't have manuscripts old enough, and that maybe scribes fiddled it later. "If Greek Manuscripts of Matthew's gospel were our only source for establishing a reading of the text, then there would be no need for further study, as all extant manuscripts contain the name-phrase 'baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'...However, it must be remembered that we have no extant (currently known to exist) manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between the actual writing of Matthew and our earliest manuscript copies." And Skeptics and critics like Bart Ehrman use the same reasoning to suppose that the NT used to be a sandal repair guide. If Ploughman isn't careful, he'll open the door to a steamroller factory and end up flattened, textually criticizing Jesus himself right out of saviorhood and turning him into a Cynic sage or a space alien. The best Ploughman can offer otherwise is comments from specialists stating that some mss. of Matthew are missing the last pages (which is what we would expect to be lost in any event from any ancient document, and thus proves nothing at all). When the data is not helpful, you can still use it to poison the well.
Ploughman next shifts to patristic evidence (though in the manner of Mormons, says that this was a time of "rampant apostasy"), beginning with Eusebius. He begins by quoting "the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte" as saying that "Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and 'the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19.' " Now this would be quite helpful and astonishing, if Eusebius really did this; may we see it? Er, no:
Further inquiry has failed to pinpoint the exact compilation referred to, as Ludwig Knupfer, the Editor, has since written, "through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine." But various authorities mention a work entitled 'Discrepancies in the Gospels,' and another work entitled 'The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.'
Well, isn't that a shame. And poor Nicholas Notovitch also lost all that stuff about Jesus being in India. It's not fair to diss his arguments on that basis! :-)
Such is the inside story; what of the outside story? Here Ploughman thought to have unearthed gold, for he found a study by F. C. Conybeare back in 1902 declaring as follows:
Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'... Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p. 136): 'For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations" simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition "in his name". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name".
Impressive? Not really, and this is an excellent example of why textual critics will only give ground when the internal evidence alerts their noses. Conybeare, something of a logocentric apparently, was clearly unaware that quotation methods in antiquity were rather looser than they were even in 1902. Does Matthew 28:19 seems amiss? So does Phil. 2:9, which is also "quoted" above, though not 100% "accurately," to wit:
God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth...
God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth...
So before one gets too excited, it might be best to, say, do a comparison of how well Eusy and others do their other quotes. As it is Conybeare admits that Eusy did quote the passage "right" in three very late and "controversial" works (why they are "controversial" and how that particularly affects Matt. 28:19 is not stated, but another source claims that their authorship is disputed), which makes the evidence rather equivocal unless we beg the question of a conspiracy to begin with.
Other than Eusy, a document titled De Rebaptismate is cited, but it is not clear that it is alluding Matthew or one of the "name of Jesus" only verses, and so hardly constitutes any evidence. Origen is cited as doing this by Conybeare:
In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'in my name', struck out.
How this "suggests" any such thing is one of those Scooby Doo mysteries of liberal scholarship, but one might point out that the message to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations", stopped at just that point, is hardly inappropos for a teacher like Origen, and surely enough served his purposes whereas the rest (whether it was Triune or not) would not necessarily have been useful. It is then noted, "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: 'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.'"
Well, that is rather interesting, for had Elaine Pagels been around, she'd have slapped Conybeare with a wet noodle for hinting that there was any problem with quoting a Gnostic. As it is, this may or may not be another case of loose quotation. But finally we have the, er, non-evidence of Justin Martyr:
Justin...quotes a saying of Christ...as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19.
Here we are not offered the saying referenced for our own inspection, but are offered a quote where Justin used the "name of Jesus" part only -- which as above makes no impact on the authenticity of Matt. 28:19.
A reader recently noted that Ploughman apparently missed some probable allusions to this text in patristic writers. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, in Chapter 2 (see here) says, Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost....". Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost". Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." and alludes to the same passage in other places as well. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, "....the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" There are several other allusions from anonymous works which we will not include.
From here we are given the opinions of people as late as the seventh century, and a long list of opinions that the verse is a forgery, which makes it clear we are scraping barrel bottom. Indeed, these opinions take up far more space than the data offered, which tells us enough of what sort of case Ploughman actually had.
Finally Ploughman applies a series of "tests" to see how well Matt. 28:19 fits in its context. Some of these make sense, but others are clearly matters of begged questions in action. Let's have a look:
The Test of Context. Examining the context, we find that the traditional name-phrase lacks syntactic quality, that is, the true sense of the verse is hindered by a failure of the linguistic patterns to agree. If however, we read as follows, the whole context fits together and the tenor of the instruction is complete: (Matt. 28:18-20) "All power is given unto me...go therefore...make disciples in my name, teaching them...whatsoever I have commanded ...I am with you..."
Translating this shazam of gobbledygook into plain language, it appears that Ploughman is arguing that because Jesus referred to himself alone three times, it makes more sense that he did so the fourth time as well. How that works out in the halls of common sense or logic is yet another of those Scooby Doo mysteries; at best it is a hugely begged question. We would hardly expect the text to read, "All power is given unto the three of us in heaven and in earth (the Father already had power, and the Spirit has a different mission). Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever the three of us have commanded you (neither Father nor Spirit were on earth giving commands): and, lo, we are with you alway, even unto the end of the world (a special emphasis needed since Jesus is about to ascend to Heaven).
2. The Test of Frequency. Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit/Ghost" used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once. Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? Yes, 17 times actually....
As noted far above, there are nevertheless triune formulations elsewhere, and if this is any relevant sort of test, then over 90% of all literature is out the window. It's a plain bad test, and that's all there is to it.
3. The Test of Argument. Is any argument in scripture based on the fact of a threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any argument in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! This argument is made in 1 Cor. 1:13...
Other than points made above about the actual nature of Matt. 28:19, we may add: Despite Ploughman's contortions, 1 Cor. 1:13 is not "based on" baptism in the name of Jesus at all; it isn't even an argument in the sense that Ploughman thinks it is. Even so, all Ploughman would have is one argument versus none, and that's hardly sufficient data to draw a conclusion in this context.
4. The Test of Analogy. Is there anything in scripture analogous to baptism in the triune name? No. Is there anything analogous to baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Ghost, a promise that came according to Jesus 'in His name.' (John 14:26)
Various triune formulas, noted above, are analogous; that they do not involve baptism is beside the point. Ploughman has created an artificial category ("triune formulas about baptism"), then complained about the lack of other members, when he needs to look at a broader category ("triune formulas, for whatever purpose"). Indeed John 14:26 amounts to such a formula, though like Matt. 28:19 it does not offer any clear description of the ontological relationship inside the Trinity.
5. The Test of Consequence. In being 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 early Church baptisms recorded in scripture, were are quite literally being baptized 'into' the name of Jesus Christ.
6. The Test of Practice. Did the disciples, after receiving the 'Great Commission' ever once baptize in the threefold name? Never! Did they baptize in the name of Jesus? Always!
7. The Test of Significance. What significance is attributed in scripture to baptizing believers in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None.
In all of these it is merely assumed that Matt. 28:19 serves the purpose of a baptismal formula, when it probably does not, as noted above. #7 especially is grounded in such a false supposition. Ploughman goes on to say, "Baptism in the threefold name can be said only to express faith in the Trinitarian doctrine itself, and the man made creeds that support it." Actually, again, it does not serve to "express faith in" Trinitarianism at all, since it doesn't offer any explanation regarding the ontological relationship within the Trinity.
8. The Test of Parallel Accounts. As God's providence would have it, Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the gospels of the 'Great Commission' of our Lord. Luke also records this event with great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he writes 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 restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19, where Jesus speaks in the first person, "in my name."
Apparently Ploughman doesn't read more carefully than is needed to sustain his arguments. Luke 24 is not a parallel to Matt. 28:19; it takes place in Jerusalem, whereas Matthew's event takes place in Galilee. Furthermore, Luke refers only to the preaching of repentance and the remission of sins, a specific duty; Matthew refers to discipling of nations and baptizing, which are other, broader duties. Repentance and remission of sin are tied intimately to Jesus and his atoning sacrifice -- discipling (enacted via teaching and baptizing) is a triune work of Jesus in redemption, the Spirit in regeneration, and the Father as the source of both. Indeed, this explains handily enough why baptism was actually performed in the name of Jesus, even as its aspect as a discipling tool was not. Ploughman also appeals to the spurious addition of Mark 16:9-20 for his case, but as there is textual evidence against that whereas there is none against Matthew, this smells rather inconsistent.
9. The Test of Complimentary Citation. While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of the triune name-phrase, there is a striking resemblance between Matthew 28:18-20 (with the correction) and Romans 1:4-5. The former contains the Commission of Christ to His Apostles, while the latter is Paul's understanding and acceptance of his own commission as an apostle.
This is very nice, because it only serves to prove the points we have made above: Matt. 28:19 is focused on a general apostolic commission, enacted via teaching and baptizing, to disciple the nations. If anything the Romans parallel only serves to verify the authenticity of Matt. 28:19.
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" is all inclusive, and certainly therefore includes baptism, which is a rite involving both word and deed.
As in other contexts, we would note that if "all" is "all inclusive" then we have a host of absurdities, such as Jesus teaching the disciples "all things" (Mark 4:34), therefore necessarily meaning, including the natural habits of sea slugs. Moreover, one is hardly pressed, especially, to take the comment in Colossians, made as it is in an exhortational context directed to persons who, as a rule, aren't going around baptizing people but are just living everyday lives, to be read as a literal prescription. If it were, one may ask whether we are, for example, also to blow our noses in the name of Jesus. It does say "whatsoever" and blowing one's nose is a "deed". Ploughman is employing Skeptical hermeneutics to make his case.
And that's what the Ploughman has to say from his field. Has he emasculated Matthew 28:19 from our texts? Frankly, I don't think so. Ploughman has entertained us with some amusing arguments, but if he really wants to debunk the Trinity, he has started in the wrong place.

And now an update. While Googling recently I found a "reply" to this item, written back in 2001 but apparently of such little worth that no one bothered to bring it to my attention. Written by a professed friend of Ploughman's named "Pastor G. Reckart" (the consonance to the word "wreck" seems appropriate), it is little more than a shrill stamping of the feet which reads like Jack Chick trying to rebut Ben Witherington. My arguments are called every name in the book ("juvemile and novice"; "unscholarly"; "mocking and ridicule") but in the end Reckart declines to engage directly the bulk of it, opting for essentially two forms of retort. The first shows that Reckart hasn't gotten his head into any scholarly lit of late:
[Holding] claims the text is not needed for the existence of the trinity doctrine, BUT IT IS! It puts the trinity on the lips of Jesus which CANNOT be found in any other statements of our Lord Christ.
Nanny nanny boo boos aside, I linked directly to material that defended the Trinity (based on Jewish Wisdom theology, which I doubt Mr. Reckart has ever heard of), and this included some material from the very lips of Jesus in which he identified himself with hypostatic Wisdom. Matt. 28:19 is of little use in this context, and Reckart offers no answer (or even a quote) concerning why I said so. But Reckart declines to "do a line by line refutation" of the article (even though it "would be easy to do", we assume meaning, once Mr. Reckart is able to hoist his plate full of Hostess Ding Dongs off of his lap and get out of his armchair), and offers instead "quotations about Matthew 28:19 that Pastor Ploughman did not avail himself in 1962 when he published his great and unrefuted theological work." (And it does windows, too.) In other words, argument by soundbite. Regrettably these is little of substance or actual argument in these quotes; Ploughman did much better himself. Moreover only a couple are of any recent provenance; the latest, from 1992, is itself a mere soundbite, with no argumentation:
"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).
Wow. That sure proved a lot, didn't it? Just appeal to "consensus" and be done with it? Well. Reckart it seems is one of these weirdos who thinks that the Trinity is a pagan doctrine. A "wide scholarly consensus" would vastly disagree with that these days; so can I just say so, and will Reckart shut up? I didn't think so.
As a whole, the quotes provided are much the same in content. Some repeat the error of reading this as a baptismal formula, when it is not, as we have shown. Others merely say, "it's a late doctrinal expanasion" and that's all, end of "argument". Most of the quotes come from even before Ploughman's time (1929, 1946, 1912, 1905!). Here's one that says anything that directly replies to us:
"On the text, see Conybeare, Zeitsch. Fur die Neutest. Wissensch. 1901, 275 ff.; Hibbert Journal, October 1902; Lake, Inaugural Lecture; Riggenbach, Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl; Chase, Journal Theo. Stud. Vi. 481 ff. The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive, in view of the fact that all Greek MSS. and all extant VSS., contain the clause (S1 and S2 are unhappily wanting). The Eusebian quotation: "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name," can not be taken as decisive proof that the clause "Baptizing...Spirit" was lacking in copies known to Eusebius, because "in my name" may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever reason, the following clause. On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel, than to invent possible reasons which may have caused him so frequently to have paraphrased it. And if we once suppose his short form to have been current in MSS. of the Gospel, there is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the Gospel, and that in the later centuries the clause "baptizing...Spirit" supplanted the shorter "in my name." And insertion of this kind derived from liturgical use would very rapidly be adopted by copyists and translators. The Didache has ch. 7: "Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit": but the passage need not be dependent on our canonical Gospel, and the Didache elsewhere has a liturgical addition to the text of the Gospels in the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer. But Irenaeus and Tertullian already have the longer clause" (The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; S. Driver, A. Plummer, C. Briggs; A Critical & Exegetical Commentary of St. Matthew Third Edition, 1912, pages 307-308).
That sure is a heck of a lot of "may bes" and "need not bes" and conspiracies by copyists and translators contrived as excuses for the simplest, most plausible, and most likely explanation: the text was written as it stands. Up next: I say "blessed are the meek" and it "need not be" a quote of Jesus, because it could have come from somewhere else, and someone just might have copied my words and added it anyway. I wonder if Reckart knows that this is how atheists do their business.
As for the rest, they are nothing but re-assertions of arguments we have already refuted, and Reckart will just have to learn that you answer A against B with C, not by yelling and screaming "B" over and over and over again. But in another place we find that Reckart does try to force out a "positive" case for corruption, and in so doing, shows his ignorance or his dishonesty. It is claimed:
We now have absolute proof the Catholic Church fathers perverted the text in Matthew 28:19. We now have the Hebrew Matthew Gospel, a manuscript that was preserved by the Jews from the first century. In this Shem Tov MSS, the text at Matthew 28:19 does not contain the trinitarian statement. Of course the Catholic Church and other trinitarian denominations who have defended the triune baptismal text, claim the Hebrew Matthew is false and a fraud. This is self-serving so they can continue to practice a false baptism and deceive even more generations to believe Jesus said something HE DID NOT SAY! We now have the Hebrew text in English thanks to Dr. George Howard, a Southern Baptist scholar. You can buy the Hebrew Matthew at many Bible book stores. If they do not have it in stock (which they will not stock for obvious reasons), they will order it for you.
Poor Pastor Reckart, and the black helicopters are coming after him, too. But watch out. Reckart purposely obscures the fact that this manuscript dates from 1380 AD. In other words, it is practically useless for textual criticism on this point. Indeed Howard clearly asserts that it "reflects contamination by Jewish scribes in the Middle Ages," and you might guess that in such an instance any text smacking of Trinitarianism would be one of the first to go.
Reckart thinks that the Trinitarian world is in for a "shaking" but the fact is that anyone who is up on the scholarship of late (Witherington, Hurtado, Dunn, etc.) knows good and well that this is merely pompous posturing. Reckart is banging his head against the front door so hard that he doesn't see what's coming in the back door, through the windows, and down the chimney.
A reader recently noted that Ploughman apparently missed some probable allusions to this text in patristic writers. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, in Chapter 2 (see here) says, Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost....". Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost". Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." and alludes to the same passage in other places as well. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, "....the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" There are several other allusions from anonymous works which we will not include.

Rev. Dave

[Dave]

Really Dave, that was unfair to the readers, since you did not give any information in the quote.

Here is the title of the article:

Tampering with the Trinity?
Is Matt. 28:19 a Late Interpolation?
James Patrick Holding

Here is the website where the article came from:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html">http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html</a><!-- m -->

And here is some interesting information about the author:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/4/024jph.html">http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... 24jph.html</a><!-- m -->


He basically did about most of the same things you did Dave,

1) Pick out some scholars, use them to refute for you, hide behind them.

2) Use an "authority" type theory that paints the name of Jesus in a broader sense than just literal terms.

3) Refute the quoted church father(s) with other church father quotes around the same timeframe.

4) State the mound of manuscript evidence surrounding the baptism/trinity formula.

5) Claim complete inerrancy of the bible.


Other than use the syriac text instead of the greek, what did he not do that you did?


He also did what you did not do, use scripture to provide adequate documentation to support your position.

Sorry Dave, maybe you were on one of your "revelation" instances, but this one does not pan out.


I mean, I gotta laugh here, what your doing is completely against what any solid Christian is directed to do by our Lord, you refuse to quote scripture to solidify your position/view. The only hard evidence that you have provided to "try" and support yourself in this is a theory. "It means something other than what it says, it is tied to this other scripture over here and it has a broader meaning than the literal sense of what you read."

That is what you just said in a nutshell to us. Now if I tried that sort of dishonesty on here with you guys, you would be all over me in a heartbeat. You would be requiring me to use scripture?!

What about that new one I found Dave?:

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words,...."

Doesn't that go against what The Lord commanded here in your syriac text?:

Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

That one is not part of ploughmans test. Is that keyed in with your "revelation" theory somehow though Dave? Do tell.

I do understand the essential aspect of baptism after the born again experience, but it is far from the main thing in our journey. Eusibius's quote points to teaching and discipleship as being foremost.


Anyways, your actions are telling here Dave, your choices and theories are reaching, and your refusal to use scipture for your stance was only in your worst interest here.

Ploughman has no aspect in this other than he provided a source of scripture quotations that I could utilize quicker than finding them myself. Other than that, he had no bearing on the outcome of this being in my favor, scripture did.

[Dave]

Here is the scripture I was using Dave:

1 Corinthians 1:13:"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

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).

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

'there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. '(Acts 4:12).

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.

It is written:"whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. .." (Colossians 3:17).

"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"

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words,...." 1 Corinthians 1:17

Here is some statistics I have posted before of ploughmans:

2. The Test of Frequency

Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once.

Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23.

This keeps hanging on but, in all seriousness, whenever you want to start using scripture that you find to correct this or enlighten me in my way of error Dave, by all means have at it, but please use scripture here, not conjecture or theories of "revelation" that tie other things together.

[Dave]

You know, Dave is taking some major hits across the bow, maybe someone else from the peshitta community should help him out some here?!?

[gbausc]

Dave of Diego Garcia,

What are the chances that you or any boatload of skeptics like you will change the reading of Matthew 28:19 to eliminate the Trinity from it ?
You have offered no evidence that it is wrong.

You claim the disciples baptized differently than the command of Mt 28:19 says. I disagree, but for the sake of argument, lets grant you that they did . Does that mean the command in scripture is wrong, or that the disciples disobeyed it ? You seem to opt right away for the integrity of the apostles and the disintegration of scripture. I would rather believe in the integrity of scripture.

Some rob Peter to pay Paul; you risk robbing Christ to pay Peter ! Hello ! You don't start by attacking scripture Dave, in order to preserve the intergrity of another scripture. You question your interpretation of scripture .That requires humility, something that seems to elude you completely.

Your interpretation does not trump the word of God. You are not God, Dave . Does anyone else see this as the issue out there ? Dave of Diego Garcia is not Christ or The Holy Spirit. He cannot correct God. There is no mss. evidence to support your position.The church father argument has been turned against you, so you choose to ignore it. Now you want to correct scripture with other scripture.
But what meaning does any scripture have for you, Dave ? Maybe there's another scripture that will correct the one's you are using. Is it all a crossword puzzle to you ?

You also made an outrageous claim about another scripture (which you say I don't appeal to) in Matthew 24:35 : Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away; but my words shall not pass away.
Your response : "This is a prophesy which has not been fulfilled". I believe that is the gist of it.

I am again dumbfounded. I am not even sure what that means. You never responded to my reply to that one, and you claim I don't address your answers.

Our Lord said "My words will not pass away", yet you say they will and they have. Are we supposed to believe you and reject Christ's words ?

I have been laughing for a week straight, Dave. Anyone who takes you seriously is to be pitied. I wonder if you believe your own words.

You also wrote:

He basically did about most of the same things you did Dave,

1) Pick out some scholars, use them to refute for you, hide behind them.

2) Use an "authority" type theory that paints the name of Jesus in a broader sense than just literal terms.

3) Refute the quoted church father(s) with other church father quotes around the same timeframe.

4) State the mound of manuscript evidence surrounding the baptism/trinity formula.

5) Claim complete inerrancy of the bible.

What ! The first one here is the only thing you know how to do , Mr. Dave Ploughman blogger. What a hypocrite you are ! I gave you my views extensively. I was not quoting anything except scripture. Then I send a good refutation of Ploughman from the internet and you cry "Foul" ?

Please spare us the dramatics.

Point two is clear as mud. Matthew 28:19 says nothing about "reciting these words when you baptize: In the Name of the Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit." - Literally !
If you want to be literal about it, then read the literal text. Where does it say , "Recite these words when you baptize, ..." ?

Answer me ,Dave. Why don't you answer ? I want scripture (Just a little of your technique thrown in there) .

Point three is mis-stated.

other church father quotes around the same timeframe

?
I gave you five others going up to 200 years earlier than Eusebius . You simply lied about that one. Ignatius wrote his epistle AD 110. Others are from AD 150 - still almost 2 centuries prior to Eusebius, and others around AD 200 and AD 265.

Some people may miss the lies. I usually notice .
Once a person resorts to lying, he has revealed his true nature.

Point four :4) State the mound of manuscript evidence surrounding the baptism/trinity formula.

Geesh ! Sorry for stating the obvious ! There is more that a mound. It is a mountain ! The evidence on your side looks like an ant hill!

Talk about making a mountain out of an ant hill.That is what you are trying to do with this issue. You will give it up, because I will expose you for the fraud you are. You cannot win this Dave, because you are a phony and I have nailed you, and I will hammer you with the truth until you run wailing like a little thief caught redhanded in the act and shot in the hand.

Point five: Claim complete inerrancy of the bible.

I am guilty as charged ! No apology offered.

I say you are a liar and a son of The Liar !
And it matters little what you say; you have no credibility with me. Anyone who believes you is as blind as you are.

"And if the blind lead the blind,they will both fall into a pit." Matthew 15:14

And that would be a very deep pit.

Rev. Dave

[Dave]

First we had the "revelation" theory. Now we have another one from Dave,...

Point two is clear as mud. Matthew 28:19 says nothing about "reciting these words when you baptize: In the Name of the Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit." - Literally !
If you want to be literal about it, then read the literal text. Where does it say , "Recite these words when you baptize, ..." ?

I think this from Dave was in relation to the section of scripture I posted from 1 Corinthians 1:17,

But Christ did not send me to baptize,..

It is part of Christianity to be baptised, but here the Apostle Paul states that he was not sent to do that thing, not his objective. It is interesting to say the least! The current scripture section on the great commission states to have them baptised but Paul says that is not his objective!?!

Interesting!

Dave says that they were not commissioned to baptise but this section of scripture is a "revelation" again, that it doesn't mean to do what it says, it is only a "revelation" of something greater, not a decree.

Let's look at Eusebius's quote:

"Go ye and make disciples of all peoples in my name, and teach them every thing which I have commanded you. "

Now this would agree more with what The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians rather than a section saying to baptize and Dave saying it meant something but it didn't really mean to do.


Ok, let's look at some scripture on baptism:

"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"

They received The Spirit, why?

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).

It is written:"whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. .." (Colossians 3:17).

Again, scripture tells the truth and exposes the lie. They were baptised in the name of Jesus and received The Holy Spirit thereafter when Paul layed his hands upon them. Do all in the name of Jesus. Eusebius's quote agree with the Apostle Paul's quote here. Scripture agreeing with scripture.

But what was Paul's focus? Winning souls, discipleship, brotherhood, not baptism, that would come afterward.

Scripture is speaking here not me Dave. How am I to lie when it is not me doing the talking in this regards. I'm using scripture to assert my position here not theories.

Am I giving the audience misquotes or incorrect information from questionable people? No, in fact I had to correct you and give all the information to clear up the quote you gave so that it wasn't construed incorrectly against me. And the source was questionable and biased. I hold to the triune nature of GOD not the oneness belief here, so where would my bias be in this regards? I don't have some objective to remove the trinity from the bible, heh.

There is no cover up here or drama from me Dave. Of course I have some laughs out of it, your revelation theory was a good one, so is this new one (I still haven't figured out a name to call it yet).

But I'll say it again:

whenever you want to start using scripture that you find to correct this or enlighten me in my way of error Dave, by all means have at it, but please use scripture here, not conjecture or theories of "revelation" that tie other things together.

Additionally:

Nor theories that elude to something else or make The Lord out to say something He didn't, or not do something that He said to do.

I'm not the one making wild things up to explain my position, nor am I lying to myself in front of people Dave, you are.

[Dave]

When anyone talks about something being wrong, especially something as sensitive as the NT text, one has to have not just evidence, but a bit of exposure to the audience for them to see.

One way to do this is by comparisons. Post a portion of the relevant scripture and then post the questionable area against it to see if it shows itself out of sequence with the surrounding scripture, or in agreement. Such as this:

1 Corinthians 1:13:"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

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,

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

'There is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. '(Acts 4:12).

Luke 24:46-47, "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.

"Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. .." (Colossians 3:17).

"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"

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Go ye and make disciples of all peoples, and baptise them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.

Here one can look, analyse, and compare the text against some other sections of scripture to see if it fits. What we see here is the disparity and problem the text creates against the rest of the scripture presented. Textually and doctrinally.


Let's try it with Eusebius's quote:

1 Corinthians 1:13:"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

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,

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

'There is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. '(Acts 4:12).

Luke 24:46-47, "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.

"Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. .." (Colossians 3:17).

"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"

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.


"Go disciple ye all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Here the quote fits within the supplied scripture quotes. If one notices, it agrees textually as well as doctrinally in the supplied scripture. Further scripture could be easily found that this quote would continue to agree in both areas, on all occasions.

This is not some sort of a fluke, this section here would agree with all supplied scripture quotes that someone could provide that were part of the subject, not just these bits I've posted.