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.

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 40 by JehovahsWitness]

Again what Eusebius was trying to do isn't really the point. His direct quoting of Matthew is the key.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think that there is solid evidence.

Fair enough. I think you don't call the entire bible into question or doubt its integrity as a whole so that's a good thing. If you have SOME confidence that the bible is a good book and useful to learn about God and His purpose you are on the right track.




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 40 by JehovahsWitness]

Again what Eusebius was trying to do isn't really the point. His direct quoting of Matthew is the key.

Yes, Matthew is the key, the accepted bible version has the full formula, so if we take Matthew as the key, we know when Eusebius was paraphrasing or abbreviating (short version) and when he was quoting from the text (Matthews version).

Regards,

JW

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 42 by JehovahsWitness]

Ok, he directly quotes Matthew. In this direct quotation he says "baptizing in My Name". No other early church father quotes Matthew directly. The council of Nicea was a major victory for Trinitarians. It makes sense that Matthew 28:19 got changed at this council. Also, the verse itself does not fit with the rest of Scripture. Jesus says the verse before that all authority has been given to Him (weird thing to say before prescribing a Baptismal authority that isn't in your name). Colossians 3:17 says that whatever we do whether in word or in deed (I assume baptism is a deed) do in the name of the Lord Jesus. The disciples baptized in "the Name of the Lord Jesus" throughout the New Testament. All of these elements together present a reasonable theory.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 44 by Petrameansrock]

Well like I said, I think its great you have a regard for the bible and if that is one of only a few verses you don't believe there are still many you can look to with confidence. The main thing is to use the bible as a guide, like a map to help you get to know God and his purposes so if you have some confidence in some of the things it says that is better than nothing.

Best regards,

JW

[polonius]

[Replying to post 37 by JehovahsWitness]

I think that there is solid evidence. I don't think that you are in denial or anything though. Your position is a legitimate viewpoint supported by evidence. All I ask is that you say the same about mine.

RESPONSE: If it wasn't in error, I'd be glad to.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 40 by JehovahsWitness]

Again what Eusebius was trying to do isn't really the point. His direct quoting of Matthew is the key.

Yes, Matthew is the key, the accepted bible version has the full formula, so if we take Matthew as the key, we know when Eusebius was paraphrasing or abbreviating (short version) and when he was quoting from the text (Matthews version).

Regards,

JW

RESPONSE: Not at all. The currently "accepted" bible version is a product of a 2nd or 3rd century addition. Much as the Johnnian Comma Trinity version is a 9th century, addition.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 35 by JehovahsWitness]

I understand both sides of the argument. I see the support and I also see how it can be viewed in a way where it doesn't support the trinity. However, I don't really have an opinion on it because I think it is spurious

And that, if you can grasp is the arguement I am making, there is not solid evidence that the verse is spurious. Someone has to defend the integrity of the bible, Jehovah's Witnesses will take on the task (thus the posts above).


JW

RESPONSE: But if it is an obvious error, then the JW's are evidently supporting this error.

[polonius]

I think that there is solid evidence.

Fair enough. I think you don't call the entire bible into question or doubt its integrity as a whole so that's a good thing. If you have SOME confidence that the bible is a good book and useful to learn about God and His purpose you are on the right track.


JW

RESPONSE: It comes down to a question of historical honesty or some religion's "dogma" contrary to such beliefs.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 44 by Petrameansrock]

Well like I said, I think its great you have a regard for the bible and if that is one of only a few verses you don't believe there are still many you can look to with confidence. The main thing is to use the bible as a guide, like a map to help you get to know God and his purposes so if you have some confidence in some of the things it says that is better than nothing.

Best regards,

JW

RESPONSE: I disagree. I prefer fact rather than fiction, even when I like the fiction!