Matthew 2819 docslide.

https://docslide.net/documents/why-do-reputable-bibles-contain.html

Why do Reputable Bibles contain Why do Reputable Bibles contain ¬ Matthew 28:19 ? Matthew 28:19 does not appear in any ancient¬  manuscripts prior to the fourth century.¬  So ¬  how did it worm its way into so many seemingly reputable Bibles ?¬  It must be remembered that four hundred hears after Christ's time - was a literal cauldron of controversy regarding the doctrine of the trinity. ¬ ¬  The Romans had taken over Christianity and were eagerly attempting to get Christ to fit into their god-like figures.¬  The God that Christ worshipped was ¬  totally tossed away - in favor of turning God's son into a Graeco-Roman god.¬ ¬  The pagans in the ¬  empire would be totally in love with that idea. And so Christ was marketed and packaged by Rome as a dualhead - trinity god.¬  Even his name was ¬  changed from "Jehoshua" into "Iesous" (hail Zeus) and his birthday was made to coincide with all the sun-gods of that period (Dec 25). Christ's passover¬  was swapped out for the springtime festival called¬  "Easter" - after the fertility goddess Easter (Ishtar). The eggs and the rabbits are a sure hint. As a result of all these changes, Rome felt the need to alter the Bible to make things more palatable to the Christians.¬  "Correctores" were hired to add scriptures, delete scriptures and alter scriptures in the Bible.¬  It was a tremendous task.¬  And the Bible was indeed altered in more than two thousand places.¬ ¬  And that number jumps to nine thousand times, if you add in the seven thousand times that the name "Jehovah" was removed and replaced by "LORD". Well, Matthew 28:19¬  appears to be a later insertion, or spurious scripture that was added almost 400 years after Christ walked the earth. "There is a verse in Matthew - Matthew 28:19 that has a problem.¬  The problem is - there are¬  no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to¬  the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript¬  in any language that contains it prior to the¬  Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period  (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus¬  spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing¬  to weigh the evidence against this passage because¬  of the weight it carries in Church tradition.¬  The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19,¬  and the Trinity baptism formula!" -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study¬  of the Text of the New Testament ¬ ¬  Randall Duane Hughes The Problem With Matthew 28:19 "A Later insertion" ¬  ¬  The Problem With Matthew 28:19 "A Later insertion" The Bible verse at Matthew 28:19 is quoted by some trinitarians - as a "proof" text for the Trinity Formula.¬  The trinity doctrine was formulated many years after the death of Christ and his apostles. The insertion of the "triune" baptismal formula at Matthew 28:19 is considered spurious by some scholars. Some feel that the wording was not part of the original text, but was put there by "Correctores" in order to support the man-made doctrine of the Trinity. Some scholars feel that the Triune Baptismal formula at Matthew 28:19 was a "later" insertion, and that it originally read "in the name of Jesus" only.¬  After the Trinity Dogma was invented - The Catholic Church felt a need to insert this Triune Formula into this verse as they had also done the same at 1John 5:7.¬ ¬  `````````````````````````````` Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire¬  Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism.¬  This is the Trinity baptism formula that the¬  majority of "Christianity" adheres to. There are numerous direct commands to baptize¬  in Christ's Name alone - such as (Acts 10:48; 2:38),¬  (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27;¬  1 Cor. 1:13) - which all point to baptism being¬  performed in the Name of Christ by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other¬  disputed verses that have proven to be spurious¬  one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7,¬  as well as alluded to in the doxology from¬  Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can¬  only make one wonder how such a doctrine was¬  contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed¬  as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look¬  at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19¬  Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has¬  been brought against it for you to consider. ````````````````````````````````````` "There is a verse in Matthew - Matthew 28:19 that has a problem.¬  The problem is - there are¬  no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to¬  the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript¬  in any language that contains it prior to the¬  Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period  (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus¬  spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing¬  to weigh the evidence against this passage because¬  of the weight it carries in Church tradition.¬  The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19,¬  and the Trinity baptism formula!" -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study¬  of the Text of the New Testament ¬ ¬  Randall Duane Hughes "one can look to the listing of the Papyri's as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's "The Text¬  of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995,¬  pages 96-103." This list gives a description¬  of the verses contained in each of the 96¬  papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems¬  to be the last verse from Matthew found in¬  the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter¬  gap (as well as a three century gap) from the¬  "earliest manuscripts" and the traditional¬  rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism¬  formula." -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study¬  of the Text of the New Testament ¬ ¬  Randall Duane Hughes "Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear¬  out this fact in their book, "The Complete Text¬  of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999,¬  pages 6 & 13."¬  Page 6 contains the list of the¬  various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also¬  ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they¬  were providing - were for - only those manuscripts that were "dated from the early second century¬  to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)."¬  Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is NOT among the verses found there!" -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study¬  of the Text of the New Testament ¬ ¬  Randall Duane Hughes "Within the past hundred years there have been¬  those who brought evidence against the¬  Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.¬  Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake,¬  J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake,¬  H. Kosmala, etc." -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study¬  of the Text of the New Testament ¬ ¬  Randall Duane Hughes "Conybeare is believed to have been the first¬  to write against it, following the discovery¬  of a variant reading of the verse, within the¬  writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times¬  in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes¬  Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all¬  nations in my name" without mentioning the¬  Trinity baptism command." -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study¬  of the Text of the New Testament ¬ ¬  Randall Duane Hughes ``````````````````````````````````` "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." -The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263 "Matthew 28:19...its trustworthiness is impugned¬  on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism¬  and historical criticism...this triune formula is   later addition." -The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics "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 exact words of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition." -The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275 "...in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula¬  was later inserted." -Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295 "...the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..."¬  -The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia¬  ¬ of Religious Knowledge page¬ 435. ` "It may be that this formula, (Matthew 28:19  ...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"(only)..." -The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work "Matthew 28:19...is contrary to the facts¬  of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian¬  formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus." -The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ¬ Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism" "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..."¬  -New Revised Standard Version "...scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command at Matthew 28:19 - was inserted later.¬  The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else¬  in the New Testament, and we know from the only¬  evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words.... baptism was¬  always "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone." - Tom Harpur; Religion Editor of the Toronto Star ¬  in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion." -The Bible Commentary (1919);¬  ¬ ¬  Dr. Peake; page 723 "On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in¬  Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed)¬  and unhistorical...Thus we are faced by the problem¬  of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus. ...the early Catholic Church Manual may have also¬  been edited or changed to promote the later¬  Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact¬  that the Catholic Church at one time baptized¬  its converts in the name of Jesus only but later¬  changed to Trinity baptism...It is obvious that¬  in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript¬  *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism." -The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds ¬ by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake¬  ¬ 1979 version pages 335-337 ` "...Matthew 28:19... the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula¬  of the threefold name, which is here enjoined,¬  does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which... baptized 'in' or 'into' the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus,¬  without any reference to the Father or the Spirit"¬  -(DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Page 88.) ¬&nnbsp; Concerning Matthew 28:19 - "the Acts of the Apostles...and Paul... speak only of Baptism 'in the Name of Jesus.'¬  Baptism in titles cannot be found in the first centuries..."¬  -NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: (McGraw Hill Publishing, Page 59.) ¬  "The baptismal formula was changed by the¬  Catholic Church from the name of Jesus Christ, to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,¬  in the second century."¬  -Encyclopedia Britannica¬  (11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366) ¬  "The Christian baptism was administered using¬  the Name of Jesus. The Trinitarian formula of¬  any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of¬  the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr,¬  when the Trinity formula was used." -The Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion  ¬ ¬  Volume 2, pages 377-389 ` "(Matt. 28:19) does¬ not¬ claim to be¬   statement of the historic Jesus¬ and¬  represents an addition¬ made¬ by the early¬  church¬ after his death. Similarly, the¬  references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel were NOT spoken by Jesus." - Norman Pittenger  Anglican theologian at Cambridge The Divine Trinity (1977), pp. 21-22. ```````````````````````````````````` "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,¬  (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15)." - From The Dictionary of the Bible,¬  ¬ ¬  1947, page 83 "Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name¬  of the Lord Jesus only (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. "(Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in¬  the Trinitarian language of the next century. The invariable original usage was baptism¬  "in the name of Christ Jesus," only (Acts 2:38)¬  and NOT "in the name of the father, and of the Son,¬  and of the Holy Spirit.¬  No historical trace appears¬  of this baptismal formula." -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...there was¬  no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son,¬  and Holy Ghost." - History of New Testament Criticism,¬  Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112 "the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19¬  is spurious (forgery - later insertion).¬ ¬  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 "Critical scholarship, on the whole,¬  rejects the traditional attribution of¬  the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus¬  and regards it as of later origin." - The Philosophy of the Church Fathers  Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143 "The Greek manuscripts of the text of the¬  New Testament were often altered by the scribes,¬  who put into them the readings which they held to be the right readings." -Biblical historian¬  ¬ Dr. C. R. Gregory Matthew 28:19 "In the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest¬  Latin Manuscript, the pages do not exist¬  which contained the end of Matthew." - F.C. Conybeare¬