Matthew 28:19

[Petrameansrock]

So this scripture is the reason almost every major denomination baptizes in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is also a major argument for the Trinity. But as we have seen in the past with 1 John, there are instances where scripture has been touched by man to promote Trinitarian doctrine. My question is do you think this scripture is valid or invalid? I know we have a lot of people who aren't Trinitarians on here, so that's why I ask.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 125 by Pipiripi]

Ok, so based on that confirmation, the syllogism would go a little something like this..

1. Only God can come on earth and live a sinless life based on his own free will
2. Jesus came on earth and lived a sinless life based on his own free will
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

If there is any beef with that, please let me know.

Read John 1:1-14. And also 1John.

John 1:1-3, followed by John 1:14..all are Trinity "proof" texts, which helps prove my point.

They are lousy "trinity proof texts," because they have been taken apart on these threads time and again. I guess you missed it.

Are you afraid to click on this link?

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... t_index]=0


Also see the book Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, pp.113-133.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Nowhere in the Bible does it even suggest that "only God can come to earth and live a sinless life." That is a figment of someone's imagination, totally.

Um, actually, its not. To come on earth and live a sinless life would mean that you are morally PERFECT...and only God is morally perfect. You can't be morally perfect without being God.

Even Adam, a human, could have lived a sinless life if he had chosen to do so.

He was perfect and created without sin.

No where in the Bible does it say that Adam was perfect..and I CHALLENGE you to cite the Scripture which says so.

The reason he died, and his progeny as well, was that he CHOSE to turn away from God and do his own thing without interference from God. Only THEN was he destined to die.

Newsflash: if something can "go bad", it was never perfect in the first place...and that is what Jehovah's Witnesses fail to understand.

Jesus proved that a perfect human could choose to live a sinless life, unlike Adam who chose to rebel.

Jesus could not sin.

You forget that God cannot die. If He did, the universe would cease to be anything viable. No living thing would survive. Jesus could die for our sins because he was not God.

Jesus' body died, not his spirit. Physical death is when your spirit leaves your body. Jesus spirit left his body, and his body was dead.

That says nothing about his immaterial spirit, which obviously succeeded his death. But since Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in life after death, I don't expect you to fully grasp the concept.

[Pipiripi]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

My friend the trinity doctrine is also a false one. It isn't the believers who believes now in that teaching. It is because they don't know the origen, where that teaching has come.

[Pipiripi]

It is very easy for knowing the truth. When three or more scripture proof Matthew 28:19. We can say it is truth. But never you find more scripture who has the writing about baptism in the name of the Holy Spirit. I think what must be written there is. Baptized them in the name of the Father and the Son, WITH the Holy Spirit. If it is written in the first BIBLE before the Roman Church destroyed all the others scriptures.

OUt of curiosity , what are you calling the first bible?

The original writings of the apostles and others in the New Testament. Maybe the hand writings.

The original writings of the apostles and others do not exist. No one has the hand-written Gospels or letters of Paul, etc.

My friend do you have proof? Don't you know that the Vatican have a secret place were nobody can enter and search their documents? Who is the person then who has write all the Bible without an hand writers? They have burned some but not all. Sometimes ago they find some old letters of the apostles. Do you know that? Whatever it is the Bible is a living book.

Its pretty well known. Matthew and Mark were written by Mark , peter's secretary and later Pauls, I believe. And there was input in Matthew from a yet unidentified writer that has been labeled "Q". Luke appears written by a Luke, but not the Apostle. John actually may have been written by John the Apostle, still uncertain 100%. It was considered the Authoratative Gospel by some.churches.

The most important thing is that all in the Bible is inspired by GOD, not Satan. That's why I believed everything in my old BIBLE. The Bible who is much closer to the original.

And what Bible version is that?

2Tim. 3:16-17

[polonius]

When and why did the concept of Trinity first develop?

Keep in mind that Mark was written about 70 AD, Matthew and Luke about 80 AD, and John about 95 AD.

Do we have any earlier documentation of the use of the term "Trinity"?

Do any of the epistles of Paul (55-64 AD) refer to any Trinity?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 134 by polonius.advice]

IDK, for sure, yet. But it began with Rome it seems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy

[polonius]

[Replying to post 134 by polonius.advice]

IDK, for sure, yet. But it began with Rome it seems.


RESPONSE: Actually it did not begin with Rome.


The Arian controversy was a series of Christian theological disputes that arose between Arius and Athanasius of Alexandria, two Christian theologians from Alexandria, Egypt. The most important of these controversies concerned the substantial relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy

In short, the Jewish "shems" also recited by Christ, taught tha thelord was one.

If there weere really two or three godheads, an explanation ad to be manufactured.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 134 by polonius.advice]

IDK, for sure, yet. But it began with Rome it seems.


RESPONSE: Actually it did not begin with Rome.


The Arian controversy was a series of Christian theological disputes that arose between Arius and Athanasius of Alexandria, two Christian theologians from Alexandria, Egypt. The most important of these controversies concerned the substantial relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy

In short, the Jewish "shems" also recited by Christ, taught tha thelord was one.

If there weere really two or three godheads, an explanation ad to be manufactured.

Wasn't the council of Nicea, governed over by Constatine? Yes, Arius and Athanasius were from Egypt but Athanasius represented the Roman Church view, not any other.

[TripleZ]

Here's my personal view. I have always questioned this scripture since throughout the book of Acts the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus, and I always rationalized this by saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, it became apparently clear to me that these ideas weren't enough. So I researched the history of this scripture. There are no surviving copies of Matthew 28:19 before the Council of Nicea. There are manuscripts of Matthew 28:18 and Matthew 28:20, but not 28:19. That's fishy. I then looked at what the non-Arian early church fathers had to say about baptism. Now almost all of them were Trinitarians, and almost all of them said "Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Unable to reconcile this with the practice in the book of Acts, I dug deeper, and I noticed that ONLY ONE early church father referenced Matthew 28:19 directly, Eusebius of Caesarea. He quoted from (according to him) a Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew from the Library in Caesarea that many of the church fathers like Origen and Jerome used in their day (it was destroyed by Saracens in the 7th century). When quoting from this copy of the Gospel of Matthew he says that Jesus commanded them to "Baptize in My Name". So the only reference we have of Matthew 28:19 before Nicea was by a Trinitarian who didn't think anything of it, but it directly contradicts what our Bibles say today. My theory is that in order to promote Trinitarianism, and in order to be consistent with the practice of the day, the Council of Nicea changed this scripture and made it officially canon. And when we think about it, this really makes sense. The "in the name of the Father, the Son, and Spirit" version sounds very liturgical for Jesus, and comes right after Him saying "everything you do, do in My Name". All this evidence paired with the early church practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus point to this scripture being invalid as it has been traditionally translated.

NO, we each baptize ourselves in the heart first, by publicly confessing, verbally, Yeshua is our only Lord and messiah!

Mat 28:19 Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh,
Mat 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the age."

Yeshua was/is the SON at His baptism and were adopted / will also be a son at our own baptism.

God does not speak in half sentences either..This Yeshua was telling his fellow Jews, this was Israel was supposed to do.....

[brianbbs67]

Here's my personal view. I have always questioned this scripture since throughout the book of Acts the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus, and I always rationalized this by saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, it became apparently clear to me that these ideas weren't enough. So I researched the history of this scripture. There are no surviving copies of Matthew 28:19 before the Council of Nicea. There are manuscripts of Matthew 28:18 and Matthew 28:20, but not 28:19. That's fishy. I then looked at what the non-Arian early church fathers had to say about baptism. Now almost all of them were Trinitarians, and almost all of them said "Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Unable to reconcile this with the practice in the book of Acts, I dug deeper, and I noticed that ONLY ONE early church father referenced Matthew 28:19 directly, Eusebius of Caesarea. He quoted from (according to him) a Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew from the Library in Caesarea that many of the church fathers like Origen and Jerome used in their day (it was destroyed by Saracens in the 7th century). When quoting from this copy of the Gospel of Matthew he says that Jesus commanded them to "Baptize in My Name". So the only reference we have of Matthew 28:19 before Nicea was by a Trinitarian who didn't think anything of it, but it directly contradicts what our Bibles say today. My theory is that in order to promote Trinitarianism, and in order to be consistent with the practice of the day, the Council of Nicea changed this scripture and made it officially canon. And when we think about it, this really makes sense. The "in the name of the Father, the Son, and Spirit" version sounds very liturgical for Jesus, and comes right after Him saying "everything you do, do in My Name". All this evidence paired with the early church practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus point to this scripture being invalid as it has been traditionally translated.

NO, we each baptize ourselves in the heart first, by publicly confessing, verbally, Yeshua is our only Lord and messiah!

Mat 28:19 Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh,
Mat 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the age."

Yeshua was/is the SON at His baptism and were adopted / will also be a son at our own baptism.

God does not speak in half sentences either..This Yeshua was telling his fellow Jews, this was Israel was supposed to do.....

Not quite true. Where does "baptism" practice come from? Look up Mikvah