Matthew 28:19

[Dave]

Your forgetting the audience here Dave, those who are weighing this portion of scripture;

-I have concentrated on the scripture portions, you have made accusations over my person and provided theories of implication to change the subject rather than provide scripture.

-I have presented 10 different sections of scripture with following explanations in my defense, you have sidestepped these portions to lead into other sections and books of the bible rather than present anything in your defense.

-I have attempted to narrow the focus into one section of scripture, instead of the outside evidence, you have ignored that and continued to mislead with wrong usage of scripture that is away from the evidence presented.


Your avoiding this and refusing to present evidence that counters the claims presented. The burden of proof is currently upon you in this matter Dave. You have proclaimed complete originality of this syriac text, and I have pointed out an area that the text does not agree with the rest of scripture.

Please refrain from the banter and try to concentrate on those areas that require answers so as to justify the your claims. It's not about me here at the moment Dave, it is about the text.

I have centered in on the evidence of the text, and pulled back from the church father evidence. So there you go.

Please provide answers to each portion of evidence submitted so as to justify you claim for this particular area. If your unable to find said evidence to justify you position here, then your unable to make claims of originality for the text.

Again, as the apostle Paul said, "Is Christ divided?"

[gbausc]

Please don't tell me whom I am forgetting. I am writing with the audience in mind. I have little hope of converting you or changing your mind.

The scripture I give to defend Matthew 28:19 is Matthew 28:19 - 5500 times in 5500 manucripts.
100% of all mss. have the same reading. Any "Textual Critic" would easily ascertain this. Show me one Bible manuscript that reads differently. A "Textual Critic" is able to read the text in one or more ancient tongue and can identify the variant readings in the apparatus and understand what they mean. I have been doing that for 30 years, Dave. I can find no manuscript that contains "Baptize them in My Name" at Matthew 28:19.
Eclecticism, which I violently oppose, has at least the luxury of selecting a reading from among many manuscripts which is thought best. What you are proposing is beyond eclecticism; it is conjecture and invention.
If you think Acts contradicts Matthew, then you conclude Matthew is wrong ? How do you know Acts is right ? How do you decide ? Maybe all of Acts is wrong. Maybe everything is wrong. How would you know ?
Once you think you can "rewrite the books", as you suggested, then all bets are off and scripture is thrown out the window.

This kind of rewriting the NT started with The Gnostic,Marcion, in the second century. He decided only Luke's Gospel was scripture, and only those parts that he liked and agreed with, in a twisted version of his own making.
Once you start down that road, you end up denying God altogether, because it starts out by denying God: "Hath God said ?" is how all sin started and that is how it continues.

Do you have the authority to change scripture ? Scripture is Scripture, Dave.

Personally, I find no contradiction at all in the texts you quote. Many scholars have contended this gospel contradicts that gospel, and many arguments have been advanced in their support. I find them all ridiculous. Those who advance them are usually trying to defend their sinful life styles by discrediting God. It is a moral and spiritual problem. They are atheists at heart and practice, if not in theory.

I see no point in quoting more than the dozens of references I have already quoted, Dave; especially considering your willingness to trash scripture if you don't agree with it.

You cannot change one jot or tittle of Christ's word, neither can all the scholars and skeptics of all time in all the world.

It is not about scripture, Dave. Its about you.


Rev. Dave Bauscher

[trettep]

What is many of the other texts were altered or destroyed? Is that a possiblitiy? Didn't Eusibius write about seeing writings destroyed?

Paul

[gbausc]

Shlama Paul,


No, it is not a possibility.

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away."
Matthew 24:35

If that is not correct, we could never know what our Lord said.
The Peshitta NT is the only text whose mss. have not been corrupted with variants and alterations.

It also has a Massora, like that of the Hebrew Bible, which counts the words and letters, middle word of each book, etc. No Greek copyist ever did that, because the Greeks knew they were copying a translation, not the original.
Why would the Aramaean scribes count the letters
of each letter of the Alphabet and the number of words for each book, if all they had were a translation ?
Why would the Greeks be so careless as not to do so, if the Greek were the original word of God ?
Hmmmm ?

Why do people think it so hard for God to preserve His words, "every jot and tittle", as he said He would ? And what ground for confidence would we have if he did not ?
Burktha,

Dave Bauscher

[trettep]

I don't think the words have passed away. What I'm saying is that I don't think its makes something true just because of the quantity of evidence. I rather look at the quality of evidence.

Paul

[Dave]

I don't think the words have passed away. What I'm saying is that I don't think its makes something true just because of the quantity of evidence. I rather look at the quality of evidence.

Paul

Exactly Paul.

Dave you need to answer the question that The Apostle Paul asked those Christians way back when, "Is Christ divided?"

Answer the question Dave, "Is Christ divided?"

[gbausc]

Shlama Paul,

You asked the question and I answered it.
As far as quality and quantity of evidence applies to Matthew 28:19,
your preferred reading has neither . There is no manuscript evidence to support your reading. If you value quality evidence, then you must abandon your position on that verse. All evidence of Greek, Aramaic and all ancient versions of all languages support the same reading.

If by evidence, you refer to internal evidence, then you must study the original languages involved to ascertain the meaning of "in the name" and its usage in Old and New testaments, the meaning of the name of Jesus Christ, as well as the phrase "in the Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit".
When I hear someone say "I don't agree with this verse, because I don't believe in the Trinity", I don't interpret that as quality evidence. You say it disagrees with other texts in Acts, but that is not necessarily true. It disagrees with your understanding of other verses. Those other verses do not say that The name of the Trinity (Father,Son, and Holy Spirit) was not used, only that the Name of The Christ was involved. They also do not say that the use of His Name was a verbal formula. Many simply assume that it is a verbal formula to baptize in The Name of The Trinity or in the Name of Jesus Christ.
A thoughtful consideration and study of that phrase, "in the name" shows
otherwise. It may be a conferring of authority to a delegate or messenger sent by a king, as in The OT, when David The King sends his servant to deliver a command or message to another in his name.

As to Dave's persistent question, which he thinks I am afraid of, I am only too glad to answer:
Christ is certainly not divided, Dave, as you seem to believe. You insist that "Christ" is separate from God The Father and The Holy Spirit. I say
He is not divided; He is united with The Father and The Holy Spirit- inseparably united, so that the Name of "The Christ" is a revelation of God The Father and The Holy Spirit. Whoever pronounces His full Name -
"MarYa Yeshua Meshikha" is truly pronoucing The Name of The Godhead (The Father,The Son, The Holy Spirit)
"It has plaesed The father that in Him (Christ) all fulness dwell".

"All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily"
God has given Him (Jesus Christ) The Name (see Peshitta) which is above every Name (because it includes the Name of The entire Godhead) .

Now, Dave, I ask you: Is Christ divided , or is He one with The Father and The Holy Spirit of God ?

Dave

[Dave]

Dave answers:

He is not divided

Which is correct, and scripture attests to this, "I and The Father are one," or as the OS has it, "I and The Father, we are one.' This is in action and agreement.

Yet, you continued on in the same sentence and divided Him;

He is united with The Father and The Holy Spirit- inseparably united so that the Name of "The Christ" is a revelation of God The Father and The Holy Spirit. Whoever pronounces His full Name -
"MarYa Yeshua Meshikha" is truly pronoucing The Name of The Godhead (The Father,The Son, The Holy Spirit)

That is INCORRECT and completely wrong! There are separate titles for each, each with their own name, distinct beings of their own persona, yet each agreeing together in action. Hence the phrase that we are fully aware of: "Let US make man in our own image,.."

Your personal beliefs have taken Christ and applied these titles into His own persona, that is attempting to divide Him, which goes exactly against what The Apostle Paul taught. The Father did not die for us on the cross, The Holy Spirit did not die for us on the cross. There is only one who died upon the cross for us, and that name is our only authority given here, unless you want to start being a Oneness believer such as Chris?!

That is why Paul ask the question and made the statements:

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

The following words, "Was Paul crucified for you?" is the telltale sign of what your wrong in Dave, there is no other name applied here except Jesus, the one who paid for us, Paul has spelled it out for us. There is one name only, and it is singular, that has been approved for us to utilize here to the throne of grace.

This is your personal belief, not scripture:

God has given Him (Jesus Christ) The Name (see Peshitta) which is above every Name (because it includes the Name of The entire Godhead) .

There is NO scripture to prove this sort of Oneness belief from you Dave, and you thought I was a Oneness believer? heh

You lost, and you helped demonstrate the flaw in this syriac text. Now you can move on and work on the interpolation that I posted. Thanks.

[Dave]

Let me summarize some in this:

This portion of a church father quotation,

All power is given unto me. .. go therefore. .. make disciples in my name, teaching them. .. whatsoever I have commanded. .. I am with you. .. (Matthew 28:18-20)

is the only portion of scripture that will agree with this;

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

and this;

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.

and this;

"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"

because of this;

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

And here are the statistics for it:

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.

It is more than obvious to the casual onlooker that the current phrase in our bibles was an insertion into the texts by heretics.

Also, the portion of Matthew's scripture that Dave utilized in his defense, that The Lord attests,

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

happens to be known as bible prophesy, not an ongoing action as Dave and others tend to make it out to be, so as to justify this NT text and others. This is validated easily as it was attached to the portion of "Heaven and earth shall pass away,..." and we have yet to see that happen. This is to be fulfilled, hence the faith of the believers.

GOD changes not, and HE never said that HE would stop raising up prophets to do those things that he needs. The old testament and it's ordinance's was fulfilled on the cross, in the person of Jesus, and He said it was finished, but GOD has never finished writing, nor has HE ever said that HE would stop. To those who believe such, lays a treasure beyond imagine, and definitely beyond the natural sight of man.

The word is alive as much as The Word is living, this is true, it just takes that one with the faith given by GOD to see it and copy it down for the world to have again. Does one doubt??

Anyways, I'm finished here with this post and Mister Bauscher has proven his double-mindedness and his adherence to churchianity rather than Christianity. This syriac NT text has been formally demonstrated to be non-original.

peace out.

[gbausc]

You are twisting yourself, everything you have said and everything I have said into a pretzel, Dave.
You asked, "Is Christ divided?". I said, "no, He is united with His Father and The Holy Spirit."

You respond,

Your personal beliefs have taken Christ and applied these titles into His own persona, that is attempting to divide Him, which goes exactly against what The Apostle Paul taught.

First of all, even if I did believe in oneness teaching, which I do not, uniting the names of the Trinity (which I do believe in) into one Name (Christ) is not dividing Him. It is the unity of The Godhead.
You have already lost this argument, Dave. You just won't concede defeat, so you try to make it out that I am saying what you wanted me to say, which is that Jesus is the only God there is-that He is The Father and The Holy Spirit and The Son, which is oneness doctrine and is sheer nonsense.

I will not allow you to twist my words and God's words into their opposites. "Christ" means "The Anointed One" ("Meshikha" in Aramaic) . Scripture (Isaiah 61:1, Acts 10:38) says God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with The Holy Spirit. The Name of Jesus Christ is then a revelation of the Trinity:
The Father Who anointed Him, The Son Who is anointed, The Holy Spirit Who is The anointing.
If that is heresy, then I am guilty, along with the apostle Peter and our Lord Himself, of being a heretic. Our Lord quoted Isaiah 61 as applying to Himself: "The Spirit of Jehovah is upon Me, because Jehovah God has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, ..."

If you deny these truths, then you are the heretic, not I.

You wrote:
Yet, you continued on in the same sentence and divided Him;

Quote:
He is united with The Father and The Holy Spirit- inseparably united so that the Name of "The Christ" is a revelation of God The Father and The Holy Spirit. Whoever pronounces His full Name -
"MarYa Yeshua Meshikha" is truly pronoucing The Name of The Godhead (The Father,The Son, The Holy Spirit)

How is saying He is united with His Father and The Holy Spirit dividing Him ?

You are the one dividing Him, Dave of Diego Garcia.

Then you go on and write the following:

It is more than obvious to the casual onlooker that the current phrase in our bibles was an insertion into the texts by heretics.

Matthew 28:19 is inserted by heretics ? That would make every Bible ever published heretical.
Every manuscript of Matthew would then be heretical; every Protestant and Catholic church would be heretical; every Assemblies of God,the Church of The East would be heretical; The Syrian Orthodox Church, The Greek Orthodox Church, The Russian Orthodox, etc.- All are heretical, Dave of Diego Garcia,according to you, because they all have and accept Matthew 28:19 as scripture and believe in the Trinity and recite these words at baptisms.


But you go on:
"

Also, the portion of Matthew's scripture that Dave utilized in his defense, that The Lord attests, "

Quote:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.


happens to be known as bible prophesy, not an ongoing action as Dave and others tend to make it out to be, so as to justify this NT text and others. This is validated easily as it was attached to the portion of "Heaven and earth shall pass away,..." and we have yet to see that happen. This is to be fulfilled, hence the faith of the believers.

Now, you have yet to learn a perfectly reasonable rule : "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But you went ahead and fixed the scripture anyhow, Dave of Diego Garcia.

What in the world are you saying about this verse (Matthew 24:35) I may never know or want to know.
Is this your version of this verse :
"Heaven and earth will pass away and so will My words for thousands of years, and then I will send Dave of Diego Garcia and others who will "rewrite the books", for He and they will be "His People" who will correct all things, for the scriptures will pass away for many generations and then they will rise again from the West coast of the Americas and move eastward , sending My latter rain of the Word upon the earth from those who know neither the scriptures nor the power of God, nor can they pronounce My Name in any language with understanding, nor do they study to show themselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth."Well, that certainly set my mind at ease, and makes it all so much clearer.

You think you're digging out of that hole you're in,Dave of Diego Garcia, but you are so far down it now that I can barely see ya from up here.

Do ya want a rope ?


Dave Bauscher

[trettep]

The Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19 is made out to be another person when its not. We know the Holy Spirit is "OF" the Father or the Father's Spirit:

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

Baptizing in the "name" can only be applicable in my opinion to a person. Whereas a "spirit" is not a person but is part of a person. For example:

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

So it makes only sense that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit within the Father that can be within others:

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

If the Holy Spirit were another person then it would be included as another person of the Godhead in all the salutations in the epistles of which it isnt but yet the Father and the Son are.

The fact that Eusibius quoted from a Gospel of Matthew that is different and predates the current rendering of verse 28:19 assures me that there is tampering that has been done. Furthermore, Eusibius confirms that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue the only real renderings that we have that match what Eusibius quoted are Hebrew sources. So whether or not Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic is prime in this situation we have older confirmation in history and by reason of scripture that show the verse to be in contradiction.

To accept the verse as valid says that the earlier source that Eusibius quoted was wrong and leaves contradiction in the accepted form.

Paul

[Dave]

So whether or not Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic is prime in this situation we have older confirmation in history and by reason of scripture that show the verse to be in contradiction.

To accept the verse as valid says that the earlier source that Eusibius quoted was wrong and leaves contradiction in the accepted form.

Paul

Exactly Paul.

On and on scripture shows this verse to be in contradiction with the rest of NT scripture. Dave contends it is not, and that "in the name" really is suppose to mean we are to quote all three, such as the current matthew verse says. This is why I say he is inserting his opinions.

This is easily proven wrong over and over, such as when Peter healed the cripple at the gate of the temple called beautiful, he spoke: "In the name of Jesus, The Messiah of Nazareth, rise up and walk!"

Here is the same usage of the authority vested in the disciple from Jesus, by usage of "in the name," but we see Peter stating what would be the obvious usage here to us as a whole, a singular form, which duly agrees with scripture throughout the NT. Again, this section here witnesses to the singular usage of the term "in my name."

Dave still contends that all three are vested within one under this name, which is unproven scripturally, and is a form of heresy.

If one also looks at the current structure of the verse, the main thing being promoted is baptism, which we do not find in Eusbius's quote. Eusibius's quote promotes discipleship. The current form most likely got stuck in there to promote the "baptism is salvation" catholic method, which again, is heresy, as it does not promote true salvation through repentance.

[gbausc]

Shlama Paul,

Your objection to The Holy Spirit being a Person would also have to apply to God The Father. John 4:24 says, "God is a Spirit". Does that mean God The Father cannot be a Person ? Angels are also spirits- see Hebrews 1:7. Are they not persons ?

You and Dave both seem to concede that Eusebius
is the only source you have for the reading "in My Name" at matthew 28:19 . Did you know that Eusebius also quotes the verse in the traditional words, "in The Name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Spirit" ?
Where did he get that reading ?

You guys are really grasping at straws, now .
Show me one Greek manuscript of Matthew with a different reading. Show me one Aramaic ms. with a different reading of the verse in question. Show me one version of Matthew in any ancient language with a different reading.

To disregard plain scripture and substitute conjecture in its place is sheer folly. It most certainly is not scholarship or wisdom.

Dave says I am a heretic for believing it is scripture, and he is orthodox for not believing it !

I don't know how anyone could take him seriously.

Let's stick to the evidence, gentlemen.


Yours for Truth,

Dave

[gbausc]

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

[trettep]

Shlama Paul,

Your objection to The Holy Spirit being a Person would also have to apply to God The Father. John 4:24 says, "God is a Spirit". Does that mean God The Father cannot be a Person ? Angels are also spirits- see Hebrews 1:7. Are they not persons ?

You and Dave both seem to concede that Eusebius
is the only source you have for the reading "in My Name" at matthew 28:19 . Did you know that Eusebius also quotes the verse in the traditional words, "in The Name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Spirit" ?
Where did he get that reading ?

You guys are really grasping at straws, now .
Show me one Greek manuscript of Matthew with a different reading. Show me one Aramaic ms. with a different reading of the verse in question. Show me one version of Matthew in any ancient language with a different reading.

To disregard plain scripture and substitute conjecture in its place is sheer folly. It most certainly is not scholarship or wisdom.

Dave says I am a heretic for believing it is scripture, and he is orthodox for not believing it !

I don't know how anyone could take him seriously.

Let's stick to the evidence, gentlemen.


Yours for Truth,

Dave

Dave, yes the Father is a person. I don't know where you get that I discount that the Father can be a person because He is Spirit. The Holy Spirit however is the divine nature of the Father. Again, if the Holy Spirit were a person then those that believe in the Trinity should look at the salutations in each of the epistles where the Holy Spirit is non-existant.

As for Eusibius - yes he did make the rending of Matt 28:19 that we find now but it was only after the council. If you read his history you will find that he leaned towards favor of Arianism which the Council seemed to be brought together to reach consensus between the bishops on what to adopt whether it be the Trinity or the doctrine that Arius supported. After the Council it was determined that the resulting creed would fall in favor of the Trinity while Arius was further persecuted as well as others in favor of his doctrines.

What should alarm us is that the Holy Spirit is the revealer of Truth - for there to even be need of the Council to begin with should tell us how false the establishment was.

Paul