Matt28-19

Baptism History The Early Church Historian Eusebius appears to quote from a different manuscript than any we presently have.The Shem Tob Hebrew manuscript, Eighteen times between the years 300 and 336-C.E. Eusebius cited Matthew 28:19, 20 as Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, In my name (Jesus) with out the words (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. At present we don’t have any complete manuscripts of Matthew prior to the 4th Century, and all existing manuscripts written thereafter contain this phrase. However, there is evidence that this reading is a later corruption of the original text. More Details References- (1) various_quotes.htm (2) 2001Translation.some quoted below. (3) Truth.org/great_commission. (4) English.sdaglobal.org/research/Mt 28 19-(5) -Truthontheweb.org/ (6) 3/quotations.htm

Read Matthew 28:19 just a few lines down and refer back to Baptism History Who was Eusebius open Wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

For Baptism Verses Open Acts 2:38 Acts 8:16 Acts 10:48 Acts 19:5 Rom 6:3 Gal 3:27 Matt 28:19 SBT says

"For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor {anything} secret that will not be known and come to light. Lu 8:17

[In Context|Original Greek] The Holy Verses Declare that they are adequate for Salvation (2 Tim 3:17- 3:16 and The Rule.) No More Traditional Teachings (Doctrines) Are Needed.. 2 Thess 2:15 and TraditionPlusVerses.

There are hundreds of Trinitarian Bibles and Commentaries Online but--Very Few Non-Trinitarian/Oneness Bibles and Commentaries online. Sbt gives you access to both Open PlusOthers Then BestBiblesPlus. BestNonTrinitarianOnenessBibles and BestBibleDictionariesPLUS.

DOCTRINEBuster1

Matthew 28:19 Reads 2001Translation Commentary.reads in part, and you can check Parrallel Translations –By opening Matt/28-19.htm

The words found at Matthew 28:19, ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and [God’s] Holy Breath,’ are not found in the ancient Shem Tob Hebrew manuscript, so they may be spurious (words that were added to the Bible). So, did Jesus really command that we be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?--

Many churches use a variation of the baptismal formula found at Matthew 28:19 which reads, ‘Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ This has been called the Trinity Formula, since it contains the three-person Godhead. More on the 4th Century Open Heb1-3.htm

It is interesting that the traditional Trinitarian reading of Matthew 28:19 does not appear in Eusebius’ writings until after the Council of Nicaea, wherein the Trinity began to formally held as official doctrine. So, evidence strongly indicates that this is a spurious scripture inserted by later Trinitarians,

in the same vein as 1 John 5:7-8. This is truly interesting (knowing) because the Trinitarians have been caught changing 1 Tim 3:16 and

1 Jn 5:7 and never foot-noting Jn 1:1 about GOD or god Open 1Tim 316 - JOHN1onePLUS What Is a god-

also Read -BestStatementFound.htm and T/O’s. GOD or god

This finding may prove to cut both ways for some, for while it breaks apart the only mention of the Trinity trio, it does seem to prove what many Trinitarians have said all along, that baptisms should only be done in the name of Jesus. So, since there may be no mention of baptism into the Father and Holy Breath (Spirit), the only other instructions in the Bible on how to baptize people say:

VARIOUS QUOTES http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm

Various Quotes from Books, Commentaries, and Dictionaries relating to Matthew 28:19

Lack of Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19-20 is unique but seems to be in codices that Eusebius found in Caesarea: he quotes (H.E. 3.5.2): "They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, 'Go make disciples of all the nations in my name. 'ST reads: "You go and teach them to carry out all the things that I have commanded you forever For Whole Article Open " shem-to-web.html

Why is it that no Greek MSS. exist from prior to the fourth century? It is due to the fact, that in 303 AD,

Diocletian ordered all the sacred books to be burned. Church historian, Eusebius, wrote, "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place." (H.E. viii 2). This has left a large gap of three centuries (a time of great apostasy, which was already starting in Paul's and Jude's day - II Thes 2:7 & Jude 4) from which there are no known complete Greek MSS--from the first century in which Matthew recorded his Gospel account until the fourth and fifth centuries. This left plenty of time for perversion of the text to occur..

Open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian#Persecution_of_Christians

Various Quotes from Books, Commentaries, and Dictionaries relating to Matthew 28:19

"Generally, the Oneness position has been the complete harmonization of the Matthean expression with that of the Jesus' name form. But, interestingly, some Oneness arguments have appealed to textual critical scholarship which denies Jesus ever spoke the words recorded in the Matthew 28:19 account. More typically, it is maintained that the one apostolic formula is 'in the name of Jesus,' and the account in Matthew was interpreted by the apostles, including Matthew himself, to be the invocation of the name of Jesus."

From Our God Is One Talmadge French, 1999, page 216

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism."

From The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585

"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15).

From The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83

Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit."

From Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723

[This is one of my favorite quotes! The double talk is incredible!]

"On the text, see Conybeare, Zeitsch. Fur die Neutest. Wissensch. 1901, 275 ff.; Hibbert Journal, October 1902; Lake, Inaugural Lecture; Riggenbach, Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl; Chase, Journal Theo. Stud. Vi. 481 ff. The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive, in view of the fact that all Greek MSS. and all extant VSS., contain the clause (S1 and S2 are unhappily wanting). The Eusebian quotation: "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name," can not be taken as decisive proof that the clause "Baptizing...Spirit" was lacking in copies known to Eusebius, because "in my name" may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever reason, the following clause. On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel, than to invent possible reasons which may have caused him so frequently to have paraphrased it. And if we once suppose his short form to have been current in MSS. of the Gospel, there is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the Gospel, and that in the later centuries the clause "baptizing...Spirit" supplanted the shorter "in my name." And insertion of this kind derived from liturgical use would very rapidly be adopted by copyists and translators. The Didache has ch. 7: "Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit": but the passage need not be dependent on our canonical Gospel, and the Didache elsewhere has a liturgical addition to the text of the Gospels in the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer. But Irenaeus and Tertullian already have the longer clause."

From The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
S. Driver, A. Plummer, C. Briggs
A Critical & Exegetical Commentary of St. Matthew
Third Edition, 1912, pages 307-308

"The disciples are further told to "baptize" (the second of the participles functioning as supplementary imperatives) new disciples. The command to baptize comes as somewhat of a surprise since baptism is referred to earlier only in chap. 3 (and 21:25) where only John's baptism is described (among the Gospels only in John 3:22; 4:1-2 do we read of Jesus' or his disciples' baptizing others). Matthew tells us nothing concerning his view of Christian baptism. Only Matthew records this command of Jesus, but the practice of the early church suggest its historicity. (cf. Acts 2;38, 41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; etc.). 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 "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the 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" (Acts 8:16; 19:5)."

Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 33B, Matthew 14-28
Donald A. Hagner, 1975, page887-888

"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged."

History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79 fn.

"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats."

The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568

"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus―this long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading."

"It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance."

History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112

"It is doubted whether the explicit injunction of Matt. 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. ...
But the Trinitarian formula in the mouth of Jesus is certainly unexpected."

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, J. Hastings, 1906, page 170

"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious.
No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the epistles of the apostles."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398

Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same."

The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64

Matthew 28:19 "... has been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether thy may be the ipsissima verba of Jesus. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal. 3:27; Rom 6:3, suggest that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus." This is difficult to reconcile with the specific instructions of the verse at the end of Matthew."

The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, page 351

Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin.

Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form.

The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143

Many of the above quotes were found in the reference section of a local Nazarene University library.

SBT Latest Find is at Matt 28-19---SBT has applied TheGWGPNC Rule.htm

(Open Example1Jn1-1.htm ) to this verse and has discovered that it is definitely out of harmony with all other verses related to baptism—

-or SBT would not print this.

Two Outstanding points why the words Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are spurious.

(1) They are definitely out of harmony with all the other verses related to baptism---(2) –The Apostles disobeyed those words.---who really believes that the Apostles would not have followed Jesus’ command. They ever once baptized anyone in the Name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit.--

No Scriptural Conformation!!!

What happens to disobedient ones

Open 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 - [Verse 6 in Original Greek] –Open 1:8

5 This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,

8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed --for our testimony to you was believed.

19:5

A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.

(8735) )l eybzK xypyw (8686) hqNy (8735) )l eyrq$ de(
. +elMy

Compare all commentary Open Matt 28:19 NASB and read all commentary and apply TheGWGPNCRule--Rule.htm

Trinitarian commentaries are not likely to let lose of their last few favorite supporting verses Jn 1.1 and Matt 28-19

But remember Jesus’ words at Luke 8:17

Open Luke8-17.htm

studylight.org/info/Statement-of-Faith.html and searchgodsword.org/his/ad/cac /

Plus Luke 8:17

Here Is What Jesus’ Stewards said at -1Cor 4:1

Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

No mention here of any later Greek council meeting needed for any new doctrines Open 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Here Is What Jesus’ Stewards Used

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.