General False Premises in Matthew 28:19

[benadam1974]

The question why didn’t the Apostles and early church obey Jesus and baptize according to Matt. 28:19 is founded on two main false premises.
1. The text is Trinitarian.
But, most Trinitarians would not say “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” is the literal “name” for the Trinity.

2. Eusebius only quotes the short form “in my name”.
But, Eusebius quotes both forms before and even after Nicaea!
For more see: https://thehumanjesus.org/2022/04/05/matt-2819-is-neither-a-trinitarian-formula-nor-a-corruption/

 

[LeeB]

Catholic church admits they changed Matthew 28:19. See Catholic encyclopedia at this link: Catholic Encyclopedia volume 2.djvu/309.

 

[benadam1974]

Catholic church admits they changed Matthew 28:19. See Catholic encyclopedia at this link: Catholic Encyclopedia volume 2.djvu/309.

I don’t see where it says that..?

 

[LeeB]

The question why didn’t the Apostles and early church obey Jesus and baptize according to Matt. 28:19 is founded on two main false premises.
1. The text is Trinitarian.
But, most Trinitarians would not say “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” is the literal “name” for the Trinity.

2. Eusebius only quotes the short form “in my name”.
But, Eusebius quotes both forms before and even after Nicaea!
For more see: https://thehumanjesus.org/2022/04/05/matt-2819-is-neither-a-trinitarian-formula-nor-a-corruption/

 

[LeeB]

I examine the facts. I do not subscribe to the premises you gave. I have heard explanations to support them and they are as confusing and senseless as the trinity itself. Matthew 28:19 is the only place in all of scripture with this formula yet there are many scriptures that refute it. According to Catholics to mention only one name of the trinity includes them all. It seems Pope Stephen could not make up his mind as to what formula to use, he just said it would have to include the trinity concept. There was debate amongst them over various forms, why, if the original was always a triune God. Paul brought out the symbolism of baptism as the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, not the Father or Holy Spirit. God cannot die Christ died. Shem Tov wrote an expose to deny Jesus was God and deny the trinity. In his historical research he acquired a copy of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew that predated other known works and Matthew 28:19 was rendered “in my name”. Should we use one verse of scripture to negate many or use the many to negate the one?

 

[benadam1974]

I examine the facts. I do not subscribe to the premises you gave. I have heard explanations to support them and they are as confusing and senseless as the trinity itself. Matthew 28:19 is the only place in all of scripture with this formula yet there are many scriptures that refute it. According to Catholics to mention only one name of the trinity includes them all. It seems Pope Stephen could not make up his mind as to what formula to use, he just said it would have to include the trinity concept. There was debate amongst them over various forms, why, if the original was always a triune God. Paul brought out the symbolism of baptism as the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, not the Father or Holy Spirit. God cannot die Christ died. Shem Tov wrote an expose to deny Jesus was God and deny the trinity. In his historical research he acquired a copy of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew that predated other known works and Matthew 28:19 was rendered “in my name”. Should we use one verse of scripture to negate many or use the many to negate the one?

Where does it say the "Catholic church admits they changed Matthew 28:19" in that encyclopedia link you shared?

 

[LeeB]

That link is not the only source, there are more. I have devoted much time in studying this. The best way is to do your own study rather than my trying to prove anything. I have learned the hard way to not trust only one or a few sources. Look at all you can find. You need to prove all things to yourself, only then can you be sure of the answer. Rely on God's Spirit to guide you to all truth. In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom.

 

[benadam1974]

That link is not the only source, there are more. I have devoted much time in studying this. The best way is to do your own study rather than my trying to prove anything. I have learned the hard way to not trust only one or a few sources. Look at all you can find. You need to prove all things to yourself, only then can you be sure of the answer. Rely on God's Spirit to guide you to all truth. In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom.

Amen! And that’s what I’m trying to do, ask for prove on what you wrote.

 

[LeeB]

That link is not the only source, there are more. I have devoted much time in studying this. The best way is to do your own study rather than my trying to prove anything. I have learned the hard way to not trust only one or a few sources. Look at all you can find. You need to prove all things to yourself, only then can you be sure of the answer. Rely on God's Spirit to guide you to all truth. In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom.

Google Shem Tov or Hebrew gospel of Matthew also try Wikipedia Matthew 28:19.

A Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel does not have trinity formula and predates all Greek and Latin

 

[benadam1974]

Google Shem Tov or Hebrew gospel of Matthew also try Wikipedia Matthew 28:19.

A Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel does not have trinity formula and predates all Greek and Latin

That's a Medieval Hebrew translation of Matthew propagated by 1 scholar in the 20th century. There are ZERO Hebrew translations and/or manuscripts of the Gospels. ALL known early translations of the Greek contain the text as it is. Again, ALL translations including Syriac, Latin, etc., show no alterations or corruptions to Matt. 28.19.

 

[LeeB]

That's a Medieval Hebrew translation of Matthew propagated by 1 scholar in the 20th century. There are ZERO Hebrew translations and/or manuscripts of the Gospels. ALL known early translations of the Greek contain the text as it is. Again, ALL translations including Syriac, Latin, etc., show no alterations or corruptions to Matt. 28.19.

Apparently you did not look up the hebrew gospel of Shem Tov. Catholic church much later did a Hebrew version of Matthew that had the trinity baptism. It takes a good bit of time to look up and read what I gave you. Your quick reply indicates you did not.

 

[LeeB]

Matthew knew that the Holy Spirit is the FATHER. Would he have written, in the name of the Father, the son and the Father ? The holy spirits name is YAHWEH. In the name of YAHWEH, Jesus and YAHWEH.
It does not matter if the Greek or Hebrew language is correct in this verse just as it does not matter in 1 John 5:7. Lies can be told in correct languages. This scripture, Matthew 28:19 is a lie written in proper language.

 

[Outcast]

Matthew knew that the Holy Spirit is the FATHER. Would he have written, in the name of the Father, the son and the Father ? The holy spirits name is YAHWEH. In the name of YAHWEH, Jesus and YAHWEH.
It does not matter if the Greek or Hebrew language is correct in this verse just as it does not matter in 1 John 5:7. Lies can be told in correct languages. This scripture, Matthew 28:19 is a lie written in proper language.

And the rest of the recorded baptisms were done in the name of the Son only.

 

[LeeB]

And the rest of the recorded baptisms were done in the name of the Son only.

Matthew 28:19 appears in the earliest translations we have just as it is in modern translations. This is used to prove its authenticity however there were many other older writings that existed that we do not have. All these arguments are moot because Matthew would have never written a trinitarian lie. Exactly how and when this verse came to be may not be known but one thing we do know, it isn’t true and it was never obeyed by the Apostles. Ever since the council of Nicaea the primitive Catholic Church has had control over the scriptures as there are historical references to the Roman church confiscating the writings brought to the Nicaea council by the attendees.

 

[Outcast]

Mat 28 19 Baptismal Formula Changed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The change of the original Text of Matthew 28:19 Here are some sources of the Catholic Church that have confirmed the change of the baptismal formula. ...

archive.org

 

[LeeB]

I do not think Peter was ever in Rome. I think the pagans in Rome did not understand Paul’s preaching about FATHER , son and Holy Spirit and thinking carnally had to concoct the idea of the trinity. The trinity idea existed very early, even during the life of Apostle John.