Post Reply
5 years ago  ::  Feb 28, 2009 - 2:12PM #1
anzertree
Posts: 992

Random people keep sending me emails about this verse. Since I no longer have to Watchtower Lib (new computer), I'm gonna need some assistance. Everyone is familiar with this common remark about being baptised in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. But there are other recorded baptisms that did not follow this so called formula. Can anyone give me some verses or any other counter claims for this common remark?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 28, 2009 - 9:22PM #2
anotherpaul
Posts: 2,702

Feb 28, 2009 -- 2:12PM, anzertree wrote:


Random people keep sending me emails about this verse. Since I no longer have to Watchtower Lib (new computer), I'm gonna need some assistance. Everyone is familiar with this common remark about being baptised in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. But there are other recorded baptisms that did not follow this so called formula. Can anyone give me some verses or any other counter claims for this common remark?



Here is some info I have.

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on May 26, 2011 - 09:35PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 28, 2009 - 9:31PM #3
anotherpaul
Posts: 2,702

Feb 28, 2009 -- 2:12PM, anzertree wrote:


Random people keep sending me emails about this verse. Since I no longer have to Watchtower Lib (new computer), I'm gonna need some assistance. Everyone is familiar with this common remark about being baptised in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. But there are other recorded baptisms that did not follow this so called formula. Can anyone give me some verses or any other counter claims for this common remark?




 


It is also possible that Matt 28 ghas ben altered by Trinitarians.


 



html_removed
html_removed
html_removed
html_removed



Eusebius the church historian
had in his library a copy of Matthew in Hebrew, which Jerome mentions
as having seen. Eusebius until, the Trinitarians took control of the
Christian Orthodoxy, consistantly quoted Matthew 28:19 as reading "in
MY name"!


 


The threefold name (at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf. Did. 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read "make disciples in my name" (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation (see H. B. Green; cf. Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986) 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of the "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the early practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: "There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (tou kuriou Iesou; Acts 8:16; 19:5). . . . Schaberg's theory that the triadic formula goes back to the triad in Dan 7 (Ancient of Days, one like a son of man, and angels) remains an improbable speculation. (Hagner, D. A. 1998. Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33B (Mt 28:20). Word, Incorporated: Dallas)




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."




Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."




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."




Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:


"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."




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:


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2009 - 12:27AM #4
richardnak
Posts: 728

Greetings everyone,


The only reason I am posting here is that this thread is at the top of the page, and I most likely will get a response.


I had someone that I think is a brother post a message on my profile page. His screen name is carlos_erty. He says that he is deafmute, and I have a difficult time understanding his messages.


I saw him post on the welcome page a few days ago, and was thinking that maybe someone that was more familiar with the way deafmutes communicate their thoughts, could be of more help for him. Also, he is from the Phillipines I believe, and maybe someone that is familiar with the language, and understands the communication terms that he is using, could be of more help.


He seems to be reaching out to the friends, and I feel very limited in communicating with him. I live in a very isolated place, and there are none here in our congregation that sign or regularly speak with the deaf. I know that in the larger cities there are many ASL groups and those from the Philippines that would be able to help this brother.


Thanks,


Richardnak. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2009 - 9:35PM #5
Jason75
Posts: 96

It's quite possible it may be as anotherpaul's has indicated by reference.  According Nestle and Aland there are no known extant manuscripts prior to the 4th century for the last 2 books of Matthew.  Tradition and zealous scribes may account for the current reading.


Anotherpaul mentioned Eusebius(2nd/3rd century).  In his book Demonstratio Evangelico page 152 he quotes from the book of Matthew :  "Go, and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you."


Howard Clarke - The Gospel of Matthew and its Readers [A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel]


     "The Great Commission of 16-20 offers a summary of Matthew's theology. Jesus' final appearance, recalling Daniel 7:14 ("dominion" over "all people, nations and languages"), is a kind of minor Parousia, anticipating the second coming; but it also looks back to Moses, since it takes place on a mountain, perhaps the "mountain" of the Sermon and the transfiguration. Like Moses with Joshua, Jesus can look into the future as he delegates authority for his disciples' worldwide mission-though he says nothing here of their passing on this power to others. "Teach," because converts must be taught how to live new lives; "baptizing," because their repentance of sin must be ritualistically demonstrated (and this initiation rite became distinctive of Christianity); and "observe," because they must follow the new laws of Christ (and this last injunction became a Reformation proof text against Roman "additions"). A similar version appears in Mark (16:15-18), where the baptism in the name of the Trinity is omitted and Jesus speaks of the faith of new Christians and the wonders they will be able to perform. In the "Hebrew Matthew" it is simply "Go and teach (them) to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." This is the "short form" of the Great Commission, thought by some to have been the original conclusion to which Matthew added the Trinitarian baptism formula.


     The invocation "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," called the "Baptismal Affirmation," is unique in the New Testament, where baptisms are usually in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5), and may reflect a baptismal formula from the early church. Or it may be a post-Nicene interpolation, since there is some evidence for a "short ending" without these words. It is a kind of embryonic creed, and it serves as the supreme scriptural basis for the "developed" doctrine-and the mystery-of the Holy Trinity, three Gods in one divine person, with the Son and the Holy Spirit eventually defined as of "one being" or "substance" or "essence" (Greek: ho-moousios; Latin: substantid) with the Father, their mutual indwelling technically known as "circumincession." This is a doctrine better experienced mystically than explained logically, much less cogently. But for early Christians it accounted for the God of the Old Testament, the divinity of Jesus, and their own sense of spiritual empowerment. Still, it has been a difficult doctrine historically since Christianity, like Judaism, distinguished itself from paganism by its uncompromising monotheism, and Scripture even has Jesus admitting that "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). But now in addition to God the Creator, there was the fact of Jesus Christ, Lord and Redeemer, Son of the Father, and the problem of God's presence within him, as well as a sense of the inspiring and sanctifying Spirit, the Comforter, who came to be united with Jesus in baptismal formulas and other liturgical invocations.   


     Although it often alludes to three aspects-word/power, love, spirit-of divinity, the New Testament says nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity as such, and it is odd that so important a concept should appear only in Matthew and so belatedly in Jesus' teachings. This has created problems for Trinitarian Protestants who objected to doctrines not firmly anchored in Scripture, and it has not been a popular subject with their preachers. The problem of defining the relations, particularly of the Father and the Son, among the three equal but distinct realities or "persons" of the Trinity was to preoccupy thinkers of the early church, who had to clarify the Trinitarian references in Scripture and liturgy. It was Tertullian who first used the term in the early third century, although other church fathers had used Trinitarian language, and in the late second century Irenaeus had come close to formulating what would become an orthodox consensus."


The WTBTS uses the traditional text- and makes good points as to its meaning. 


"The fact that baptizing is to be done in the "name" of the holy spirit does not in itself establish that the spirit is a person. Even Trinitarians recognize that the word "name" at Matthew 28:19 does not mean a personal name. Says Greek scholar A. T. Robertson Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Vol. I, p. 245): "The use of name ([Greek] onoma ) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority." That the term "name" so used does not necessarily imply the existence of a person might be illustrated with the English expression "in the name of the law." No one familiar with the English language would conclude therefrom that the law is a person. The expression simply means 'in recognition of what the law represents,' its authority. Similarly, baptism "in the name of the spirit" signifies a recognition of that spirit and its source and functions." -w74 7/15 pg. 422 


"Scholars have discovered that in secular writings the expression "in the name of," or "into the name of" (Kingdom Interlinear), is used with reference to payments "to the account of any one." Theology professor Dr. G. Adolf Deissmann believed that in view of the evidence from the papyri, "the idea underlying . . . the expressions baptise into the name of the Lord, or to believe into the name of the Son of God, is that baptism or faith constitutes the belonging to God or to the Son of God."- Deissmann's italics. Interestingly, a similar expression was used by the Jews of Jesus' day, as explained in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "The circumcision of a proselyte is done . . . 'in the name of the proselyte,' to receive him into Judaism. This circumcision takes place 'in the name of the covenant,' to receive him into the covenant." A relationship is thereby established and the non-Jew becomes a proselyte under the covenants authority. So for the Christian, baptism following dedication establishes an intimate relationship with Jehovah God, his Son Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit. The convert recognizes their respective authority in his new way of life." - w92 10/15 pg. 19 (bold added)


agape,


Jason

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 26, 2011 - 4:22AM #6
TheGenuineChristian
Posts: 2

Feb 28, 2009 -- 2:12PM, anzertree wrote:


Random people keep sending me emails about this verse. Since I no longer have to Watchtower Lib (new computer), I'm gonna need some assistance. Everyone is familiar with this common remark about being baptised in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. But there are other recorded baptisms that did not follow this so called formula. Can anyone give me some verses or any other counter claims for this common remark?





Just read the Book of Acts.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 26, 2011 - 1:55AM #7
older
Posts: 9,166

I have no doubt that the scriptures were tamoered with to add more than "In Jesus name" for that was the apistasy  told about by Paul, in 2 Thess. that was held back until all those having  been given the sprit of truth  died , for they wre holding  back the apostasy.


Now were are living in the very end of the last days, and I wondered if the Oct. 17 date will again be a set  as an important date.I was attempting  to show the meaning of the word fall. It tells in Math. 25 that those who see his brothers and how they treat them  are noted, and in 1 Cor. 15 it tells of all the authrotiy being brought under Jesus during the 1000  year reign. Does his reign begin when he is  given authority as in Dan. ch. 7? As things develop we will discern. Meanwhile we go on doing the work that Jesus outlined, and that  disobedient  churches do not like us to do. But we see it as a command. It is possible that the UN will fall, but perhaps also they might attempt tomake peace by  eliminating all religion, and including JWs. The society also tells us to have our emergency bags and supplies ready.  So we  have  tried to make sure we have all our meds and  needs of various supplies  all packed.  Yes it is close. But there will be lots of teachng work to be done  yet.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 09, 2012 - 1:34PM #8
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,031

In response to "The Other Paul," to suggest that the baptismal formula in Matthew 28 has been altered by Trinitarians is absurd and without any evidence.  There is one "name" that applies to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and if the Father' s name is "Jehovah," so are the names of the Son and the Spirit.  There are no Greek manuscripts of this passage that show any textual varient here at all. 


However, the New World Translation has interjected the word "Jehovah" 237 times into the New Testament without any of them having any textual evidence whatsoever.  That is just an inexcusable molestation of the Bible.   You often make the excuse that you are "restoring" the name that was used in the OT.  But of those 237 occasions, only 50 are OT quotes meaning the 189 left are really diliberate alterations to the Bible text in order to insert your teachings that are not otherwise present. 


The only reason you would make such a statement is because Matthew 28 doesn't agree with your teaching--and it doesn't!  Neither does the 237 occasions when you had to insert a name into the text. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2012 - 5:38PM #9
DNT
Posts: 1,514

Feb 28, 2009 -- 9:31PM, anotherpaul wrote:

Feb 28, 2009 -- 2:12PM, anzertree wrote:


Random people keep sending me emails about this verse. Since I no longer have to Watchtower Lib (new computer), I'm gonna need some assistance. Everyone is familiar with this common remark about being baptised in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. But there are other recorded baptisms that did not follow this so called formula. Can anyone give me some verses or any other counter claims for this common remark?




 


It is also possible that Matt 28 ghas ben altered by Trinitarians.


 



html_removed
html_removed
html_removed
html_removed



Eusebius the church historian
had in his library a copy of Matthew in Hebrew, which Jerome mentions
as having seen. Eusebius until, the Trinitarians took control of the
Christian Orthodoxy, consistantly quoted Matthew 28:19 as reading "in
MY name"!


 


The threefold name (at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf. Did. 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read "make disciples in my name" (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation (see H. B. Green; cf. Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986) 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of the "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the early practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: "There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (tou kuriou Iesou; Acts 8:16; 19:5). . . . Schaberg's theory that the triadic formula goes back to the triad in Dan 7 (Ancient of Days, one like a son of man, and angels) remains an improbable speculation. (Hagner, D. A. 1998. Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33B (Mt 28:20). Word, Incorporated: Dallas)




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."




Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."




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."




Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:


"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."




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:



Hey Anotherpaul


This would be a good discussion on the other board, but to say it was added by trinitarians is nonsense, this is always the way when it comes to any scripture that shows the triune Godhead, which can unequivocally be shown in the Holy Bible.


God Bless You


Denis. 

1Ti 3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 06, 2012 - 7:21AM #10
marken
Posts: 3,642

NOT TRUE!!!

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook