Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Matthew 28:19
#1
I have been concerned about the validity of Matthew 28:19 as found in the Greek:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

My concern here is that as I understand from many commentaries this verse is controversial because its not found in the same manner in Hebrew translations. So I looked at the Lamsa version of the Bible that I found online and noticed that the verse still seems to read very similiar as well as the Peshitta translation here as well. So I'm wondering if the actual text that is being translated contains this meaning or is there some "padding" (if you will) to patch these areas with the verses from other translations in order to make the translation "complete". I tend to believe in the Hebrew version here as being the more accurate primative in what I currently have seen. Could it be that the Gospel of Matthew is more primative in Hebrew and the rest of the NT is more primative in Aramaic. Obviously all lot of concerns in my head.

Paul
Reply
#2
Hi Paul,

To what Hebrew version are you referring ?

A very literal rendering of The Peshitta has :
"Go therefore, and teach all nations; and baptize them in the Name : the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit of Holiness. - My translation.

Blessings,

Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#3
Shem-Tob has possibly has it from Hebrew saying only "in my name" and excludes the rest as I understand it. I feel that is consistent with the rest of the baptism doctrine. The current text seems to conflict that. I'm not saying your translation is wrong - I'm just wondering if what your translating from has the correct translation/writing to begin with. I'm not a Trinitarian and I know this isnt the forum to get into debating such issues and therefore wont but I believe the verse is flawed because of my understanding of this topic. When I studied the subject of baptism I could not find any other reference to baptizing in another name but that of Jesus. Therefore, this verse seemed out of place. So I started my research and found this verse was lacking any many things including some writings from early church historians as they quoted from whatever Matthew it was that they had.

Paul
Reply
#4
That particular section has been debated over the years simply because it doesn't fit there when you read through it a couple of times. Also, it doesn't agree with what the first century Christians were doing, such as doing all things in the name of The Lord Jesus. You don't find the trinitarian formula in the epistles, they just use the authority of Jesus.

It is one of the areas that most likely was designed to agree with church doctrine. It along with Mark's ending section.

I think there is a greek manuscript that has that section removed also. Shem-tob's is touchy, it has a lot of denial of Christ in many sections so it is not a full-fledged trustworthy copy. The text of Munsters and Dutillet are more reliable is you do some comparisons. They also agree more with the latin and greek.

A little known secret, the additional name for the matthew gospel in the DuTillet manuscript is also listed in a polemic treatise from the middle ages. Funny how the name is quoted along with a latin translation underneath it,.....things that make you go hmmm.

I'm quite sure that even is Mr. Trimm would have seen the name listed there in the book, he would have never said anything about it anyways. The last thing he needs is possible proof that his cherished hebrew matthew may have came from an old latin original, as some have speculated.

But, the extra name is most likely valid, if it is showing up here in a couple of things. It is easier to associate the possibility of someone finding the lost name than trying to re-write a doctrine on a genealogy. I know that does not go over well here with this crowd, but not all of us are sold over on the primacy issue, wether it be greek or syriac.
Reply
#5
Hello Paul,

You must believe in the scriptures, or you would not be frequenting this forum, so I suggest you consider some OT scriptures first. There are many which reveal the plurality within the unity of God. Genesis 1:26 has four arguments for a plurality in the Godhead. Do you see them ?

There are many other OT references, but this one is enough for now.


Blessings,

Dave B
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#6
Yes. I'm glad you guys have been replying to this topic. Yes I do search the scriptures for the Truth and that is the reason I'm here as I do see primacy over Greek as some sites have shown there to be almost unrefutable evidence this is why I'm perplexed further by this particular verse. I do believe in the plurality of God and have a keen sense of scripture. I don't belong to a "church" and study myself intensely (though never enough in my opinion). I had a lot of trouble understanding this until I looked at the evidence that God gave us which is better than scripture. I realized that God is asking us to be Born Again as Children of God. I thought about the fact that mankinds own birth process is from God - we didn't create human reproduction - God did. I also, believe that it must have been good - so good that I believed that process is used in reproduction a Christian (born again). I believe that the Father in Heaven is the Supreme authority and power and that He is creating offspring through Jesus as an example and through His Holy Spirit. I believe that Holy Spirit is actually the divine nature of the Father in Heaven Himself.

2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

That divine nature IS the Holy Spirit. I believe that anywhere that Holy Spirit is - IS God (The Father), whether its in me or another. That is why those that have it are called Sons of God. This is just like the way we raise our own children. We impart to them our nature and they can understand and know our voices and comprehend our teaching.

God even compared that Spirit to our the one in man:

1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knows the mind of man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so, no man knows the mind of God, except the Spirit of God.

The Father is also Spirit as the Bible says and most know and obviously that Spirit is Holy. Therefore, in the Trinity doctrine to me that has listed 2 Holy Spirits.

Eph 3:14 -15
14 For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our LORD Jesus Christ, 15 For whom all fatherhood in heaven and in earth is named,

This is why I know that Matthew 28:19 is a phony and even more so that all other accounts of baptism have it being done in the name of Jesus. This is why I am looking to find the books that contain the correct renderings of this verse. Because the Peshitta translations that I have seen contain the Trinity, I know its not original though that doesn't mean that the book of Matthew wasn't written in Aramaic - its just that I only know of a Hebrew version at this time that in my opinion got that verse potentially correct in George Howards and a couple others. Not to mean they are completely correct but that verse is - which compels me to investigate it further.

By the way - I'm not trying to debate the Trinity doctrine at this time but clarifying my reason as to the importance of what I'm seeking for.

Paul
Reply
#7
I wouldn't reject the Peshitta's originality based on that verse. It does not say there is a trinity. It mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it does not say that God is made up of 3 people. Whether one believes in the trinity or not, this verse simply doesn't mention it. It would be a shame if you give up on the Peshitta based on your misunderstanding of one verse!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#8
No. I don't give up on it - on the contrary I consider it to be more valid than most sources. I don't however consider original. I do believe there are works within it that are tampered with. Some have said there might not be any untampered or polluted texts that capture the original meaning of the authors in existence. I don't know if that is true or not and don't know how to go about looking into some of the text. I heard there was many Peshitta type fragments that haven't been translated or other fragments that are still in need of research to determine the value of their content. I would like to find sources for those items to explore them myself. I also have embarked now on trying to learn Aramaic language so if anyone can direct me to good resource - please do.

Paul
Reply
#9
Quote:No. I don't give up on it - on the contrary I consider it to be more valid than most sources. I don't however consider original. I do believe there are works within it that are tampered with. Some have said there might not be any untampered or polluted texts that capture the original meaning of the authors in existence.

Smart people in these areas look for originality and question anything that appears to be wrong. You questioned an area that I had not yet thought to look into, the baptism ending of Matthew. To me, it gives credence to my claims that the syriac was a translation off the greek, as it promotes the sacramental liturgy of the catholic church, just like the greek manuscripts do. There was a site that had a great portion of evidence on this, I'll have to find it again.

I do give the syriac some credit though, it looks like the greek manuscripts used in a portion of the books were chosen carefully, and they are viable for comparisons.

Translations off the greek and latin have been happening on and off throughout the centuries. The 12th century hebrew translations promoted by Trimm and others, look more and more to be from latin, as scholars have already claimed, numerous syriac translations come from the greek, armenian, coptic, etc.

No matter how much one petitions for an older date on these things, the dating hand has been pretty steady throughout the years, our oldest sources are still the greek and latin manuscripts, especially greek, with mega-amounts of history behind it. That is your closest source to the original anyone has been able to find yet.

Whatever the source was, the greek does lend itself to viewing a semitic source in various books and portions within books, and people have been taking opportunities to reverse engineer this for quite some time over the years, the bad thing is that there are people running around claiming originality on these very creations and duping The Lord Jesus's people over it at times. When you try to show these hucksters their wrong, they run around with their hands on their ears yelling lalalalala.

What amazes me even more is how whole denominations can be duped over these things so easily, can we say Morman church and Messianic communities? I thought we could. These people approach it so honestly and truthful to whole groups of people, they lobby for various things on the internet over it, that one gets very easily mislead over it.

Trimm had loads of people believing his proofs, and people like him will only get worse as time progresses. He made it so easy to believe in his messianic stuff, I think after a while that people just wanted to believe in it no matter what. I had to take a double take in a few areas myself.

If one is not actively pursuing answers from GOD on these things and truly waiting for HIS answer, they will be mislead, but they will be shown the truth eventually though, if they are HIS children, the Lord Jesus is the good shepard.

Anyways, I get people riled up easily on this subject so I do not want to really argue these facts with them on here anymore, it's a deadend, but GOD is able to show them also, I'm no better than they over this. If they ask HIM, they will receive also.
Reply
#10
"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge ?"

Thus saith The Holy Spirit: The name of Yeshua Meshikha contains The Trinity thus: Meshikha ("The Anointed One") indicates The Three Divine Persons; He is anointed by The Father - with The Spirit of Jehovah
Lu 4:18 "
Quote:The Spirit of The LORD is upon Me, because He (Jehovah God-see Is. 61:1) hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
." as also Isaiah 61 has it.

"
Quote:How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."
Acts 10:38

To baptize in The Name of Yeshua Meshikha is to baptize in The Name of The Triune God: The Anointer (God The Father) , the Anointed (God The Son) and the Anointing (God The Holy Spirit).
All are in The Name of The Messiah.
10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
Mr 3:28 Verily I say to you: All sins, and the blasphemies that men may utter, may be forgiven them:
Mr 3:29 but whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, to him for ever there is no forgiveness; but condemned to eternal judgment.

Our Lord spoke plainly about The Holy Spirit. Isaiah 48:16 says The Spirit of Jehovah and Jehovah God sent Him. In John 14 , He says "
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Are we to believe Yeshua sent His Father to us ? Clearly not ? Yet The Spirit proceeds from The Father.
The lesser is sent by the greater. Yeshua has authority over the Spirit of God to send Him to testify of Him Who sent Him.

"You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the infinite power of God."

Correct that.

Shlama,
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#11
"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge ?"

Thus saith The Holy Spirit: The name of Yeshua Meshikha contains The Trinity thus: Meshikha ("The Anointed One") indicates The Three Divine Persons; He is anointed by The Father - with The Spirit of Jehovah
Lu 4:18 "
Quote:The Spirit of The LORD is upon Me, because He (Jehovah God-see Is. 61:1) hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
." as also Isaiah 61 has it.

"
Quote:How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."
Acts 10:38

To baptize in The Name of Yeshua Meshikha is to baptize in The Name of The Triune God: The Anointer (God The Father) , the Anointed (God The Son) and the Anointing (God The Holy Spirit).
All are in The Name of The Messiah.
Quote:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
Mr 3:28 Verily I say to you: All sins, and the blasphemies that men may utter, may be forgiven them:
Mr 3:29 but whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, to him for ever there is no forgiveness; but is condemned to eternal judgment.
You cannot blaspheme a non-person. Here our Lord distinguishes between God (all blasphemies would be directed against Him) and The Holy Spirit. The blasphemy against The Holy Spirit ,our Saviour considers much more serious. So serious as to be terrifying.

Our Lord spoke plainly about The Holy Spirit. Isaiah 48:16 says The Spirit of Jehovah and Jehovah God sent Him. In John 14 , He says "
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Are we to believe Yeshua sent His Father to us ? Clearly not ? Yet The Spirit proceeds from The Father.
The lesser is sent by the greater. Yeshua now has authority over the Spirit of God to send Him to testify of Him Who sent Him.

"You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the infinite power of God."

Correct that.

Shlama,

Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#12
I have not errored.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So God is a Spirit

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God is Holy - So God is a Holy Spirit. Which Spirit is it that speaks in our Saints:

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

So the Holy Ghost is also this Spirit that gives utterance.

The Father in Heaven to me is the source of everything that needed not to be created - that always existed and that includes intelligence, energy, light, time, and more... The Father in Heaven is God. And anyone that has HIS Spirit is of God because its through the His Holy Spirit which is the "glue" (if you will) for everything that is God:

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

God is creating a Family this is why He made man in His image and is fashioning Him with His Spirit. God created human reproduction and its the craft of His design that we should look at nature itself to see the ways of the Lord and when we do we see that man imparts his own spirit into his own children and likewise the Father in Heaven does the same with His Spirit.

Notice whose Spirit it is:

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Paul
Reply
#13
Quote:Acts 10:38

To baptize in The Name of Yeshua Meshikha is to baptize in The Name of The Triune God: The Anointer (God The Father) , the Anointed (God The Son) and the Anointing (God The Holy Spirit).

I would question that, The Holy Spirit would be the power, not the anointing, The Father is the anointer. The Anointing is a spiritual oil covering poured upon the believer's head by The Father so that the power of The Holy Spirit may reside upon that person, and then that person becomes suited to do the will that GOD had for he/her/them to do. Every chosen person in the old testament required an oil anointing prior to GOD moving through them in power.

Too many people are incorrect in their assesment of what the anointing is nowadays, simply because they have never experienced it.

Also, did not Peter heal the cripple at the temple by saying "In the name of Jesus, The anointed One of Nazareth, rise up and walk"? He did not recite the trinity. Although I fully support the triune nature of the GODHEAD, I also understand how to correctly speak the authority given to us to make things happen from our Lord.
Reply
#14
Neither one of you has read or understood what I wrote.
I will only give one verse this time.

concerning Jesus, who was of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power. And he it was, who went about and healed those that were suffering from evil, because God was with him.-Murdock Acts 10:38

or the KJV :
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

or The ASV:
Ac 10:38 even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

or Young's Literal Translation:
Ac 10:38 Jesus who is from Nazareth???how God did anoint him with the Holy Spirit and power; who went through, doing good, and healing all those oppressed by the devil, because God was with him;

or The Douay (from Latin mss.)
Ac 10:38 Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

So Jesus is The Anointed One, God The Father is The Anointer and The Holy Spirit is The Anointing.

"The Christ" and "The Messiah" means "The Anointed One".
That title signifies The Father (The Anointer) , The Son (The Anointed) and The Holy Spirit (The Anointing).

To baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Meshikha) "The Anointed One" is to baptize in The Name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

If you don't get it this time, I give up.

May the peace of Christ, the love of God, and the communion of The Holy Spirit be with you all.

Dave (OK, so I gave two verses).

Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#15
I love when people make themselves out to be an authority over others at times, it just makes me smile inside. Little do they know just how far removed they are.

If you wish to alienate yourself here from the topic, simply because "we" are not able to comprehend your bias, by all means do so.



Trying to pull something out of scripture that is not readily being said is bad juju, and you know it Dave. The only reason that you would even attempt such a feat here in front of us is to justify your own bias to the text here.

Look at what your saying to us, To baptize is to baptize, blah, blah, blah,..

That is totally incorrect, totally biased, and totally outside of what any educated Christian in the scriptures would ever do, and you know it. Your putting words into the Apostles mouths that they didn't speak. You don't ever knowingly take scripture out of context like that to justify yourself and your beliefs!

This is not one of those times when things are implied in the word that is backed up by old testament scripture, yet it seems that your trying to use that structure here.

Peter and Paul never, read that again, NEVER, ever said or implied that usage of the word as you have just tried to run past us, wether their audience was the Judeans or the gentiles, there is no bit of scripture applied from them to desinate any other authority other than "in the name" singular, of Jesus, none buddy.

Everything we do has to be applied "in the name of Jesus." Why? That is our only authority from heaven we have been given to utilize here.

This is one of those times when your just wrong and you need to accept it instead of lie about it in front of people Dave. Paul in this topic brought up a legimate section that is questionable, and it shows tampering from someone over the years, people have known about this already, it is not new here to us. Unfortunately for you and others on here, this tampering carried over in the syriac, which does blow your originality theories out of the water, at least in this particular book.

And why wouldn't it carry over? The adherence to catholic litugies is so evident in the church of the east and others, it is a no-brainer that it would not be accepted as original by those who wished to justify their religion. It's make perfect sense why it would be accepted by that community. Action equals reaction.

Here is some more indepth reading:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm">http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm</a><!-- m -->


Now, on to your annointing theory:

Read your old testament post:

Quote:The Spirit of The LORD is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor

Did you catch those two separate actions there Dave?

Does not this passage in the old tesament post two separate actions here?

I surely thought that I caught two separate actions there?!

Could someone show those two separate actions to Dave for me?

Wow! Look at that! Two separate actions spelled out in the old testament Dave!


But why does the new testament sections equate the annointing as the very same act of receiving The Holy Spirit? Could it be that someone played around here in these areas also? Most likely. I bet if I look around in the older texts, I will find areas here that others have overlooked, that clarify these problems.

What's funny is how the old testament anointing process is the example that is going to be followed by The Lord on to His believers, yet the NT texts have distorted this and brought them together for whatever reason. Funny huh?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)