bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: ATTN: DEEDLE  (Read 5136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SteveB

  • Guest
ATTN: DEEDLE
« on: April 29, 2006, 12:51:55 PM »

Hey man, do you still have those links for Mat. 28:19 ava.?

Or anyone else for that matter, thats got any links to good info about the validity of this verse.

Thanks
Logged

Deedle

  • Guest
ATTN: DEEDLE
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2006, 01:35:40 PM »

Here is the paper by Jeff Wagner.

http://www.aionios.com/appendix_a.html

Here are the links.

http://www.israelofgod.org/Constantine.htm
“A Collection of the Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19� by A. Ploughman


http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm
Analysis of Matthew 28:19 by Randall Duane Hughes


http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm
Various Quotes from Books, Commentaries, and Dictionaries relating to Matthew 28:19


http://www.godglorified.com/eusebius.htm
The Writings of Eusebius


http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 by Clinton D. Willis

Deedle  :D
Logged

SteveB

  • Guest
ATTN: DEEDLE
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2006, 01:55:18 PM »

Thanks, dude.


Whats your opinion of the validity of this verse?

Peace...Steve
Logged

Deedle

  • Guest
ATTN: DEEDLE
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2006, 03:14:10 PM »

I believe these words of Matthew 28:19 are bogus.

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (KJV)

Jer 8:8  
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

Read the paper that Jeff wrote. That is how I see it.

Deedle  :D
Logged

SteveB

  • Guest
ATTN: DEEDLE
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2006, 06:25:53 PM »

Quote
I believe these words of Matthew 28:19 are bogus.

Read the paper that Jeff wrote. That is how I see it.


Yea thats how i see it as well, makes you wonder about how many more of these there are.  :?

This is always where the 'trinitarians' go. Kind of hard to refute and always made me wonder about the validity of the verse in relation to the rest of scripture.

This is the only witness of such a verse so I just say show me two witnesses of such a doctrine.  :wink:

 'pope' Ratzingers says second or third centry just in time for codex vat. and codex sini. Do you know if this verse in contained in those?  

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.




Some excerpts for others...

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view.  If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."


The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."


The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 21 queries.